I agree that good code here is unavailable to the masses, and should probably be on CPAN. However, putting things on CPAN carries a heavier maintenance responsibility than leaving it here. We can post code here and have a discussion about it (and not have to provide support ourselves if we don't want to); you don't really have that option with CPAN if you're behaving responsibly.
My own relation between PerlMonks and CPAN is this: I sometimes try out new ideas here to get feedback (like Object-Oriented programming without classes!), and then, if they're interesting enough (and they're modules), I might make them a part of CPAN (watch for Class::Prototyped, coming soon)
As far as scripts, like Perl tags generator using the Debugger, I wouldn't know what to do with them. I don't think I've ever used the Perl scripts archive. I just looked at it, though, and it's missing some obvious categories like Programming Tools (of course, PerlMonks is also missing that one). (not that both places couldn't add categories, of course).
What does Elaine Ashton have to say about CPAN? Can you give a link?
Why use zip format? Not that I have anything against zip (I did write Archive::Zip, after all), but it's pretty evident that .tar.gz files are the standard mode of CPAN distribution. If you upload both a .zip and .tar.gz file to CPAN, it can confuse it (I've made this mistake). And most Windows users can handle such files with WinZip or GNU tools.
In reply to Re: this place should define a relation to CPAN soon