I'm glad I raised the modules@perl.org issue. I think it's elevated an issue for new module writers to the front. I hope it didn't offend anyone who works on the list to raise the issue. I just raised it because there's been a number of times I've been asked what to name a module, and so I'm guessing that people are going elsewhere...
Anyway, I think the RT idea is a good one. That combined with *some* ad-hoc queries in places like use.perl and perlmonks should help ease the burden on the modules@perl.org list, and also help streamline the whole process.
Re:modules@
godoy on 2002-01-10T02:52:14
Although it seems interesting, I don't think it's good doing that.
I read that list through the newsserver, not the mailing list, and I think that we should advertise it instead of finding alternatives to it.
We already have News and mail to post / read there, why forking (or creating a third alternative) on use.perl?Re:modules@
pudge on 2002-01-10T13:05:42
modules@perl.org is not good for getting responsive discussions about module purposes and names. It is for getting something resembling formal approval (or disapproval). However, if you want to really talk something out, and no one on modules@perl.org wants to respond for whatever reason, what do you do?Re:modules@
godoy on 2002-01-10T16:03:25
The same thing you do on the other mailing lists? What happens if nobody answers me on AxKit ML? Or at mod_perl ML? I'm against duplicating things. Maybe bringing up the topic here might be a good idea on rare occasions.
Really, having something here sporadically is OK, but making it permanent? I don't know.
BTW, I think I should have written that at the submitted story, not here on Matts' diary.:o) Sorry. I just had no time to read the things there...
