Re: Re: new template engine

> Adding bureaucrecy without _knowing_ that it's needed is a very bad > idea. If there is one place where overdesign really sucks, it's in ACK > formal processes. You'll end up like Norway, where 30% of the working > population have public jobs. This explains some... ;-) I have no formal process of commiting new classes to PEAR in my mind, rather a standard way to handle such situation of possible double functionality in PEAR. At the moment, there seems to be no agreement about permit it or not. We can not start every time, when such a question exists a discussion about this in general. We should discuss about this for the specific case. But specific case discussions tend to be subjectively ("I want this class in PEAR, because I use them since two decades..."). So we have to write something like a HowTo or FAQ for the PEAR dev. to document and show on which technical and objective basics a new class will be introduced or not. Such a questionnaire is a good starting point for this - it is a good possibilty for a self check of the purpose for a new PEAR-class and the basement for objective discussion und transparent decisions. BTW: My first course of studies is "Erwachsenenbildung/betriebliche Weiterbildung" ( Adult education / operational further training ) and the second is "Informatik" ( Computer science). My suggestion have a scientific background...