On 6 May 2015 at 20:44, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) <philippe.bru...@free.fr> wrote:
> Just thinking that the "Org" intermediate bit is not really needed > (and ugly). The said organizations are big/important enough that they > naturally float above the "Project" level. > My disagreement there is those are not the only organisations that exist, and others may wish to have their name. As such, an overproliferation of Policy::<> makes it messier than otherwise. An example might be: Policy::Org::Debian or Policy::Org::ShadowCat I /may/ be amenable to agree that P5P and Toolchain are more important than that and they deserve to be allowed to not need the "Org::" bit. But outside a very short list, they should have Org:: -- Kent *KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
