About IDNA and similar issues...

Hi all, reading this whole discussion about the IDNA package I was wondering if it would be a good idea to put up a new section on pearweb where people can somehow post which packages they *intend* to release on PEAR, but they still need work. It should then be declared mandatory in the PEAR docs that everybody has to look there before proposing a new class, to see whether or not there's something already in the works he can contribute to or merge his code with and then contact the author(s). If the goals of the existing code's author are not in sync with the proposer of the new package, then go ahead and propose. But if there *is* a possiblity to work things out to have a unified package with a feasible amount of work, then please unify. This might eliminate a good portion of redundant work - currently I have the feeling a lot of manpower gets just wasted because people don't know that a solution or possible solution for a problem already exists. One could argue that there already is such a section on pearweb: The proposal drafts. Okay, but then this should be made a bit more prominent, like a description on the home page what you can find there and what it's good for (and also the addition of the aforementioned rule in the docs). I think PEAR could be more efficient if more people were working on fewer packages. Choice is good, true, but wasted manpower isn't. Just my $0.02. CU Markus