conclusions/suggestions from early polling results

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