Fwd: Augmenting CPAN with P2EE specs, was CPAN polution

 From the modperl list:

>Return-Path: <[email protected]>
>Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110])
>         by mork.dijkmat.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA11922
>         for <[email protected]>; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:04:14 +0200
>Received: from con (user-38ld7ik.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.158.84])
>         by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA11299;
>         Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:04:11 -0400 (EDT)
>Message-Id: <[email protected]>
>X-Sender: idc/[email protected]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
>Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:10:11 -0400
>To: Elizabeth Mattijsen <[email protected]>, Jim Smith <[email protected]>,
>         Rod Butcher <[email protected]>
>From: Stephen Adkins <[email protected]>
>Subject: Augmenting CPAN with P2EE specs, was CPAN polution
>Cc: mod_perl <[email protected]>
>In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
>References: <[email protected]>
>  <003f01c12221$b2b66e90$0100a8c0@HYENA1>
>  <[email protected]>
>  <[email protected]>
>  <[email protected]>
>  <003f01c12221$b2b66e90$0100a8c0@HYENA1>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>X-UIDL: ;^-!!2&%"!iWD"!p:j!!
>
>Hi,
>
>At 04:42 PM 8/11/2001 +0200, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> >At 09:26 AM 8/11/01 -0500, Jim Smith wrote:
> >>If we want better QA, I'd propose requiring approval from someone on that
> >>list before a module is put anywhere in the heirarchy other than the
> >>author's directory instead of only requiring approval for a top-level
> >>namespace.
> >
> >Are you aware of the CPANTS initiative?  Michael Schwern gave an
> >interesting talk about that at the YAPC::Europe.  See e.g.
> >
> >  http://archive.develooper.com/[email protected]/msg00148.html
> >
>
>I like the idea of CPANTS, karma, kwalitee, etc.
>However, another approach is similar to what J2EE did to Java.
>There were lots of libraries/packages growing up in Java, and the
>J2EE spec said "these versions of these API's make up a consistent,
>extensive, useful, architecturally sound platform on which to build
>applications".
>
>What about the concept of a P2EE specification?
>(P2EE is pronounced "pitooey", as in "I spit on the notion that
>Java is the only language for enterprise-capable web application
>development". It is also pronounced "pee-two-ee-ee" when managers
>are around and you want to convince them it is a legit technology
>for your next project.)
>(I also note that "p2ee.org" is not yet taken as a domain.)
>
>We all know that there will never be a single P2EE specification.
>This is because there will be those who think that one template system/
>data persistence layer/XML Library/etc., combination is better than another.
>
>However, individual perl gurus could pull together their list of
>consistent, complementary, and quality API's/modules (and how to
>use them) in a spec and call it their vision of P2EE.
>
>This would be very valuable to those just getting started.
>They understand that There's More Than One Way To Do It
>(tmtowtdi), but at least they can survey how various perl gurus have
>integrated the many different technologies before them and learn
>at least One Good Way To Do It from each spec.
>
>This method of competing P2EE visions
>
>   * is decentralized and dynamic (not centralized and unchanging),
>   * is merit-centric (P2EE visions will wax and wane based on merit), and
>   * provides a way that individual modules can rise above the crowd.
>
>I can envision that module authors would work with the leading P2EE spec
>authors to ensure that their modules fit into the vision.  If the P2EE
>spec authors like the modules, they get included in that particular spec.
>In this way individual modules are naturally subjected to a certain form
>of peer-review in order to qualify for a spec.  In return, the visibility
>of the module is increased because of the spec.  If someone doesn't like
>the existing P2EE specs, they can create their own.
>
>Perhaps the various P2EE specs could be supported on CPAN with Bundles.
>
>I also think it would be *much* easier to rate/rank P2EE specs than
>individual modules on CPAN. (i.e. this goal is attainable with a finite
>amount of effort)
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Stephen
>