Hi, The voting tells me that people are
1. eager to encourage experimentation and development 2. wary of putting it in the P5EE namespace My development and experimentation continue of course. However, I have arrived at the following conclusions. 1. It is not advantageous to try to make a codebase in the P5EE namespace. It is too easy for people to misunderstand what is trying to be done. The namespace evokes a sense that its contents must be "official" or "sanctioned" or "complete" or "bullet-proof" more than other namespaces. 2. The P5EE project should focus on explaining the various solutions to the Enterprise Development problem rather than trying to adopt or create a single one at this point. Only if and when one solution stands out compellingly from the others in actual usage might the question of a single P5EE Blueprint be revisited. 3. The P5EE project can still host promising (and maybe even contradictory) projects in its CVS. They do not need to claim the P5EE namespace even if they live in the P5EE CVS. i.e. http://cvs.perl.org/cvsweb/p5ee/P5EEx http://cvs.perl.org/cvsweb/p5ee/Some-Distribution Tatsuhiko likened this to the Jakarta project at Apache.org which hosts a variety of Java projects, some of which are mutually exclusive. 4. I plan to repackage/refactor P5EEx::Blue as App::Context, App::Repository, and App::Widget. I would prefer to do this in the P5EE CVS repository as the first three projects. Let me know what you think about this idea on this list. In the future, such project nominations will be put to a vote. Stephen