[EuroPython] Re: Accepted talks on Europython ( Zope-track )

[Jean-Marc Orliaguet]

Heimo Laukkanen wrote:

> On Sun, 09 May 2004 22:16:25 +0200, Stefane Fermigier <sf at nuxeo.com> 
> wrote:
>
> Stefane Fermigier contacted me about not accepted talks and had his  
> opinion on if my calls were fair.
>
> I'm sending this also to europython-list to make sure that people  
> understand basis for my decisions as the track chair - and if there 
> are a  lot of different opinions, we can open discussion on how to 
> develope the  acceptance process to be something that would make the 
> conference better.
>
>> | Not accepted talks were:
>> | ------------------------
>> | ArchGenXML: model driven content type development in a few minutes
>> | CPS Schemas and Directories
>> | Creating PDF Templates with RML in Zope
>> | Dynamic graphical menu generation using icoya ButtonMagick
>> | Extended XLink Website with Parsed XML
>> | Flexible website menu generation with CMFMenuFolder
>> | Proxies, workflows and events within CPS3
>> | Python on a Java platform: High-Performance Text Indexing with Lucene
>> | union.cms: a new mix
>>
>> I find a bit strange that 2 talks (60 minutes each!) were accepted about
>> Archetype but none about CPSSchemas.
>>
>> Same for the balance between Plone and CPS.
>>
>> This is unfair, IMHO.
>
>
> Yes, you can say that it is unfair and I do understand your view.
>
> However I wish you understand that I make the calls based on 
> perception on  what people want to see and hear, and what will be good 
> for the  conference. This is not yet a democratic process - though it 
> would be an  interesting idea to have a slot where talks would be 
> selected based on how  registered participants ( mainly earlybirds ) 
> vote.
>
> Yes there are two 60 minute Archetypes talks since that project is 
> very  popular, interesting and at the same time also filled with 
> questions. To  have the possibility to get the main architect and 
> person who has  contributed a lot of new features to the HEAD to do 
> talks is about  creating good conference program, not about being unfair.
>
> Looking at Zope track there are four talks that mention Plone in 
> their  subject:
>
> Ship intranet applications with Plone
> Past, present and future of Plone.
> Link management in Zope/Plone.
> Organizing Zope and Plone.
>
> Two of those talks are not Plone-specific ( link management and 
> Organizing  zope & plone ) - but have something also relating to 
> Plone. Christian  Theune's talk about link management in Zope/Plone - 
> will cover issues of  threading etc. that they had to solve during 
> development of  CMFLinkChecker. And naturally Paul will be spinning 
> some organisational  opensource magic into the crowd - and use Plone 
> as an example.
>
> At the same time there are also three CPS-specific talks:
>
> PyPackage.org and the EDOS project
> CPSSkins
> CPS: past, present, future (II)
>
> There are three talks that will cover/view Zope 3, two talks about 
> Zope  Corp and their project showcase, only one Silva talk and few 
> miscellaneous  technical talks. I really can't say that the program 
> would be too much or  even at all biased towards Plone. My opinion is 
> that the Zope track has  now a well balanced program that should give 
> participants something that  they can use now and something for tomorrow.
>
> Perhaps next year we should have paraller to other Zope-talks either 
> a  Plone specific block - or even a Plone-track as fifth paraller 
> track.  Plone team has already proved that Plone can gather groups 
> large enough  for just Plone specific conference.
>
> Please do tell us your views and opinions on how to improve Europython.
>
Hi! here is my view on it.

CPSSchemas does the same thing as Archetypes but in a different way. I 
found the TTW design possibilities that CPSSchemas offers very valuable 
for rapidly developing new portal types, with a very clear separation 
between schemas / layouts / form control / portal types . It would be 
interesting for conference attendees to see the differences between the 
two approaches (filesystem vs TTW), especially when both products are 
targeted towards CMF

now considering the recent thread about the future of CMF ( 
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2004-March/020363.html ) I would 
like to hear both approaches presented by those who have developed and 
designed the products to compare the design philosophies, at least for 
the sake of opening a discussion...

PS: CPSSkins is CPS-related as opposed to being CPS-specific.

Regards /JM