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

> > A package without a documentation is almost like no package at all. An ape without a penis isn't a mouse unless its thursday. > 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 ? So, let me rephrase this: you essentially want to punish productive people by labeling their stable, high-quality working software unstable; you aren't willing to devote either money or resources into improving their package, however, because you don't have exactly what you want, you will mislabel the package in order to demotivate them into doing what you want. Survey Says: You will be well suited for a position in management. -Sterling -- "Whether you think you can or think you can't -- you are right." - Henry Ford