Re: Regrouping PEAR

Joe Stump wrote:

At any rate, if anybody is looking for someone to throw their proverbial hat into the ring I'd be up for participating. Is there a job description anywhere? :)

Initially the PEAR group tried to come up with a bunch of regulations to fix some if the pains PEAR was facing at the time. But this job is now effectively handed over to PEPr. The Group basically reserves the right to make any decisions over PEAR it feels like. It also reserves the right to veto any PEPr vote (which is why the PEAR Group needs to approve any new package voting in manually). However in practice they will not be with much power if they abuse this position. It was also created as a small group of very experienced PEAR members to help mediate for any internal issues between developers. They are also meant as a place to contact if one does not want to discuss things in a public forum immediately. For example a company wanting to scope involvement in PEAR. Personally I think it would be a good idea to think about a more scalable structure for PEAR. For example I think it would make sense if every category would try to regulate itself a bit more. Like making sure that the points of overlap between packages in the category are carefully chosen. That developers inside the category can better exchange experience by just having a sense of being a small team inside PEAR. So the category could for example take over the responsibility to approve new packages from the PEAR Group in their respective categories etc. However I am not sure if this mailinglist is really the ideal place to come up with a proposal for this. I think it would be best if people would sit down in smaller groups to work on a proposal (multiple separate groups would be best) and bring their vision for a PEAR structure into a more concrete form, that could then be discussed here again. regards, Lukas