note
monsieur_champs
<p>Fellow [Tanktalus] wrote:
<blockquote><i>As for using Perlmonks Discussion as a place for discussing modules - that seems wrong to me, too. This is about discussing perlmonks, not modules (that's what SoPW is for). Which, I suppose, makes this particular thread on-topic here, but what the thread is about would not be on-topic here, IMO.</i></blockquote>
<p>Dear fellow, I beg your pardon. I don't make myself clear as water at the first post.</p>
<p>I'm using [PerlMonks Discussion] to suggest a new Category, which name could be <b>Module Parliament</b>, the place where issues like module architecture and adoption of orphaned modules could take place <b>publically</b>, <b>inside</b> PerlMonks (that is a well-advertised, well-known forum for Perl and Community-related discussions).</p>
<p>Hope that now my point is clear like the water from the Monastery fountain. </p>
<p>Peace and Glory</p>
<!-- Node text goes above. Div tags should contain sig only -->
<div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-260843">
<p align="right"><small>-- [monsieur_champs]</small></p>
</div></div>
429198
429226