jeffa

L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L--
-R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR
B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B--
H---H---H---H---H---H---
(the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)

Point taken, but it's my only forum!

If perlmonks was the only forum I participate in, should I ask "butter or margerine?" here as well? ;-)

Abigail

Probably not, but that hasn't stopped folks in the past from asking sillier questions. :)

jeffa

L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L--
-R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR
B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B--
H---H---H---H---H---H---
(the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)

USENET called, they want their attitude back!

If I'm not mistaken, Perlmonks is a site about Perl. It's not comp.perl.language.only it's Perlmonks. This would lead me to believe all issues about Perl are welcome here. CPAN is definately related to Perl, in fact, it is the very heart of Perl, so why shouldn't it be discussed here?

Nobody claimed perlmonks controls CPAN, the module list, or is the only user of CPAN. However, This doesn't mean we can't discuss issues related to CPAN here. Posting module RFCs or questions about namespaces here can only help CPAN. It serves as an extra source of insight and a filter to point out potential problems before bothering the CPAN people with them.

You should have just pointed out that following the discussion here, jeffa should post to the CPAN list as well. Not bothered with the "perlmonks don't own us" speech. If you have something against this site, kindly check it at the door. Unnecessary stifling of constructive discussion is of little use.

:)

Did I say it shouldn't be discussed here? I just said I don't see the point. Supposed 1000 people here say "yes, it does belong there", and the modules list says "no", then what? Or 1000 people here say "no, it doesn't", the OP changes the name of his package, and next week, someone else creates XHTML::DancingSquirrels and the modules list says "Cool, we finally have an XHTML rootlevel namespace".

My point is that perlmonks doesn't control CPAN. CPAN does not have an open forum to discuss which namespaces are "official", but in practise, anything goes anyway, whether blessed by the cabal or not.

So, I remain with my standpoint that I don't see the point of discussing it. And note that the OP didn't ask "do you consider this a good name for my module?", he specifically asked about whether that toplevel namespace should be on CPAN.

Abigail

My point is that perlmonks doesn't control CPAN.

I dunno. To me this is sort of like saying "whats the point in discussing political change outside of the parliament, we don't control the laws, parliament does." Social change comes from just one person standing up somehwere and saying something. If what they have to say is reasonable and fair then it will resonate through the public psyche and eventually result in change. (Assuming a Free society.)

My point being is that these issues are coming up here quite a bit recently. No doubt some people here who have noticed them will carry the meme on. Some of them are influential in aspects of perl, and some of them are just plain going to be at the various conferences. If they bring the issue up when its relevent, and bring it to the attention of the Powers That Be, then perhaps we'll see something done to address this issue. (Even if it is just making the existing processes more visible.)

For instance if anybody ever write a proposal to the Modules list, being able cite _numerous_ good thread on the discussion would surely have its value.


---
demerphq

_{<Elian> And I do take a kind of perverse pleasure in having an OO assembly language...}