On 05/06/2015 10:44 AM, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 09:26:03AM +0200, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
Therefore I am urging you to think broader and go for:
Policy - short blurb what is this about
Policy::Org - short sub-blurb what is this about
Policy::Org::P5P - pumpkin maitaned
Policy::Org::Toolchain - joint maintainership
Policy::Project
Policy::Project::Moose
Policy::Project::DBIC
Policy::Author
Policy::Author::AUTARCH - explicitly reserved (and non-squatable, PAUSE
admins take action when needed)
Policy::Author::RIBASUSHI
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.
The only reason I included ::Org because it leaves the door open to
"small, unimportantorganizations" before they become (potentially)
big/important. This is just to explain my thinking, I am not married to
the idea of ::Org::
Would documents like David's CONTRIBUTING.mkdn document that he includes in
most of his distributions fit under Policy::Author::DAGOLDEN?
That's the thing - does the distzilla cabal have a desire to unite
behind a set of best practices? Then it belongs under ::Org::Dzil::...
