On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 08:48:18PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: > 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:: >
I see your point. I guess my only remaining argument against "Org" is that it's ugly, but "Organization" is too long. What about "Group"? After all, the Debian Perl Group[1] is called just that, and it also fits the small organizations that Peter wanted to include. (And we have the toolchain "gang".) Going back to the original proposal, the distrinction between "Org" and "Project" seems actually minimal. So, the split would really be between "authors" and "organizations". And actually, Project::Perl and Project::Toolchain doesn't sound that bad either. [1] http://pkg-perl.alioth.debian.org/ -- Philippe Bruhat (BooK) When you deal in weapons, there are no winners... only losers. (Moral from Groo The Wanderer #31 (Epic))
