dimanche 6 mars 2005

"Paris 1919" and "blink" finished Last night I wrapped up two books. The first was Paris 1919, which gave a lucid explanation of the Paris peace conference that ended WWI and is attributed for many of the ills of the 20th (and 21st) century. For folks that like history, this book is recommended. It is eminently readable but also densely cited. It provides a tour of all the personalities, all the issues, and nearly every part of the world. It also contains a ton of bon mots about accidents of history. For example, there was a kitchen worker on the Paris staff that tried to present something about his little country to the conference and was rejected. His name? Ho Chi Minh. I enjoy books like this for several reasons. Foremost, they make my problems seem tiny. [wink] Seeing famous figures of history confronted with issues of a galactic scale, then making a series of very human decision both inspired and flat-wrong, brings flavor to the facts of history. Likewise, we get to see the backstory on why things happen the way they do. So many complicated things get reduced to black-and-white in history texts, giving conclusions that are over-simplistic. "Certainly the allies knew that saddling Germany with a huge debt would lead to disaster! What were they thinking?" This book explains how things happened, and the series of rational and constrained decisions that produced a non-rational result. Based on this book, I think my next purchase needs to be a biography on Kemal Ataturk. I also wrapped up "blink", given to me by Joel Burton, the chief cat herder for the Plone Foundation and a very original thinker on open source. "blink" has a lot of buzz, particularly due to the fame of the author, who wrote "The Tipping Point". I read "blink" very quickly, basically two train rides and an evening. It's hard to say which book gave more value, "blink" or "The Tipping Point" (a gift from Tres Seaver). I guess the latter helps me understand the macro theory of how to help an open source project succeed. The former gives a micro view of individual thinking, including my own. Both are pleasant to read, well-researched, and contain some profound insight. Next books: finish "Getting To Yes" and start "All the King's Men", both recommended by Geoff Davis. 1:01:21 PM   comment []

Z3 ECMS effort starts At last summer's EuroPython conference in Sweden, the Zope track closed with a discussion about CMS for Zope 3. Could CPS, Plone, and Silva work together for shared use cases, infrastructure, and components, if/when they moved to Zope 3? Jim led a panel discussion with people representing these projects. The conclusion felt to many like, yes that's obviously a win, but unlikely that specific things would happen. Which made the next step important. Before the Plone Conference in Vienna, Phil hosted another "castle sprint" that included important people in each of the CMS projects for Zope. Lots of brainstorming and more consensus on a broad set of issues. Perhaps more importantly, lots of beer was drunk and people got to know each other, gaining some respect and trust. Still, there was a lingering feeling that the problem was too big, the agendas too hard to line up, and basically, a "I'll believe it when I see the code" conclusion. That's understandable, as Zope 3 itself is still filling in some important pieces needed by a CMS effort. An actual CMS-for-Zope3 effort seemed like fantasy-land. This makes what's happening next week in Paris so refreshing, because the question is starting to get answered. Nuxeo is hosting a Z3 ECMS sprint attended by representatives from some of the major Zope CMS efforts. The sprint page has some details. There are several points to this that I think are worth noting. First, congratulations to all that have been involved in each step, from the panel session last year to participation in this sprint. Particularly, kudos to Eric Barroca from Nuxeo, who has traveled around to visit people and create the environment of trust that makes this worth participating in. Next, what might this mean? The announcement was made on the Zope 3 mailing list, as the effort needs people that are already working with Zope 3. I hope, though, that this effort can help all of the CMS projects sort through the meaning of Zope 3. For example, in Plone, there is a feeling expressed sometimes that big new architecture projects should be evaluated in terms of the looming Zope 3. But Plone doesn't yet have a plan for when or how Zope 3 might appear. This Z3 ECMS effort gives a place for people to get involved, starting for now with people already doing Zope 3, but hopefully extending later to any of the core Plone team. We should also look at this in reverse. What does this mean for Zope 3? This Z3 ECMS effort might provide the push that gets Zope 3 over the mountain. Zope 3 has a conundrum: it needs to be "done enough" to attract more contributors, but many contributors can't participate until it is "done enough". If the Z3 ECMS effort can make Zope 3 useful today, with a full migration done later, then Zope 3 might get the last spark it needs to take off. This applies also on the leadership side. Right now, so much of the Zope 3 burden rests on the shoulders of Jim, but also Stephan Richter. They are being asked to do too much of the non-fun stuff and it isn't fair. The Z3 ECMS project can help by having a couple of architects (Florent, Martijn, hopefully someone from Plone, hopefully someone from ZC) that improve, rather than exacerbate, leadership scalability by taking on the shepherd role for CMS machinery. Note: If you need Zope 3 architecting and consulting, give Stephan Richter a shot. He wants to do it, deserves to do it, and is immensely qualified. What's the downside? Foremost, I worry that the Plone community won't be able to take advantage of this opportunity. As Eric pointed out, it's easy to get a commitment from Silva: you just visit Infrae. There isn't a door labeled "Plone, Inc." where you can visit and get committed architects. The future of Zope is important to Plone, and Plone is important to this ECMS effort. But, most of the core Plone developers are first and foremost independent consultants trying to make a living. It is hard to ask someone to be in the Z3 ECMS core team, which means a sustained effort between now and EuroPython 2005. The next downside is, alas, reality. None of the players involved can do something with an ROI in 2007. Zope 3 is still missing some fundamental pieces needed for a CMS. Thus, the Z3 ECMS team needs to find a way to get isolated benefits now. (This is what the Five project is about and also plans for Zope 2.x releases most likely to land in 2006.) The final risk is the interpersonal stuff. Will everybody leave the habitual Not-Invented-Here at the door? (The hope is that, because Zope 3 is so different, everybody has to re-evaluate what they have.) Can we create a "town council" model of architects that fill the same function as a pope, and will developers in one project accept edicts made by the architect of a different project? Will this project bring back some fun to Zope, the way Zope 3 has (quietly) started to do? Will the project participants be congratulated for working together or villified for giving up some unique machinery in favor of shared agreement? Can the Z3 ECMS project identify the true business barriers for Zope CMS adoption, then get agreement on architectural solutions, and actually implement it? Tall order. This project is exactly the kind that makes cynics cynical and optimists optimistic. Life is short, so I'll choose the latter. 12:14:00 PM   comment []