Packages and documentation (was: [Call for Votes] XML_Statistics)

> Stop thinking of developers like yourself, and instead think of > those newbies out there. There's two side to what PEAR does, helps > the current sophisticated developers deploy code quickly, but also > helps know-nothings like Johnny. I totally agree with that... As far as I was able to understand, PEAR was designed to provide a repository of PHP extensions in order to add features that were not implemented in PHP. You would NEVER tell someone "if you want to learn about extension curl, go read comments in curl.c". A package without a documentation is almost like no package at all. On the other hand, I don't think that a package should be refused approval just because the documentation is not written yet. If the author claims that he will write the documentation once the package is approved, he should be trusted, otherwise, why give him a PEAR account at all ? What about a rule stating that a package can not get the status stable if there is no approved documentation ? Katana