As an adjoiner, I would like to recognize Roberto's yeoman efforts to document OpenACS up till now. I don't want to suggest he hasn't been up to par, just that I think his work ought to be standardized so that he doesn't have to work as hard.
Also, I think one of the issues that has been raised is how poor documentation for the newbie or non-techie is. This is often called marketing, but really it's a way of describing what the system is in 500 words or less. A one-pager, if you will.
This stuff may be the most important result of our efforts. So far, the only way to learn about OpenACS is to slog through the bboards or download it and do the problem sets. While the latter may be the preferred response to a newbie's question, it's a real tough way to convince clients that they ought to use this stuff.
Allow me also to touch on the Zope issue really quickly, which can be called the Webobjects issue, or the Userland issue, or even the ACS5 issue. We need to have effective arguments for what sets us apart, not necessarily anti-Application X arguments. This means having competitive analysese (sp?) that provide current developers and potential clients lists of our advantages. Furthermore, they will be effective documents for knowing what we need to *improve* in our next release.
talli
