+2 And further, when we have that notification thing that lets people know they have people using their stuff, when their module reaches a critical number of things depending on it, we should recommend they link to it in their POD, assuming they want to follow it.
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is something that has bothered me for a while. > > We have a lot of standards and guiding principles, but a lot of it is all > in our heads, wisdom one can only get by talking about it on toolchain, > and/or breaking things and getting yelled at. > > In that vein, we need some sort of Canon set of documentations, written > and maintained by toolchain themselves, articulating how things /should/ be > done as far as toolchain are concerned, without any sort of requirement > that people adhere to it, unless they want to make toolchain happy. > > Python have something similar to what I propose, PEP standards. Shit, I > think I even saw some group for PHP define some set of standards for > certain things(!!!! They're learning and getting organised, quick, kill > them before they breed) > > Its also sad we don't really have any canonicalised representation of any > toolchain agreements that have been established at hackathons, they're > basically invisible or hiding on individual members blogs. As is the best > practices for various problems also hidden on various blogs ( see also > version numbers should be boring ) > > And this creates substantial problems for discovery and recall, as well as > having a significant point-of-failure if any of the individuals maintaining > those auxiliary sites get eaten by a SIGBUS > > As such, I propose a very rudimentary idea: > > Toolchain > > This is the top namespace > > Toolchain::Standards > > This is an index of various standards and guidelines > > Toolchain::Standards::<name> > > Where <name> is \d{4}_\w+ , for example 0001_Versions > > Numericalization is intended to make it clear which standards are "newer" > and which are "older" instead of just having a pure Alnum sort. > > Toolchain::Standards itself should be an index of the standards grouped > under several headings, with a short brief under each. > > Understandably, this is not necessary for metacpan which will show > abstracts naturally, but we may want briefs larger than a standard > abstract, and we want to optimise for offline consumption also. > > > There would also be a proviso for deprecating or suspending a standard if > it fell out of use, and this organisation would also be helpful there. > > ( As well as having an index of articles that pertained to specific > subjects and/or were decided on by various QAH groups ). > > Each of these standards though would be "Living" standards and would be > updated as need be to reflect current working practices, and so deprecation > of a document would only be a thing if the entire concept fell out of use, > and it would otherwise simply be refurbished to be current. > > I would also like a space under Toolchain:: for documenting the results of > various meetings / group discussions as a collective, and those articles > would be largely write-once -> historical documents to serve as an easy > reference point to show how various policies came to be over time ( Similar > to perl5xxxdeltas ) > > The Toolchain:: namespace itself does not seem to be taken, and if there > is no opposition, I may start the ball rolling at some time by claiming the > namespace. > > -- > Kent > > *KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL > >