1) Understood. I've been disconnected from Perl for a while, and this is really the first time I've been participating in the Perl community. Thanks for the heads-up. :)
2) I agree that it is both important and pertinent to get the general requirements down for the project, but I do see a need and a benefit to having the architecture forming in the meanwhile. I see how these things can be connected, obviously, but with a fairly flexible architecture it can be easy to expand or change it as needed. If we have the skeletal system in place, we can add the muscle and the skin on as needed. [Read more of my comments below.] 3) I'll be honest and say that I'm not a big fan of the 'Wikicosm' part, but the Perl++ part works for me. I particiularly like simple names. Maybe we could go with something distinctive, much like 'Joomla' is or 'Drupal', etc. Something different, and not nearly as explicit. Mainly speaking on point number 2 again, I agree that we need to be discussing and deciding on the minimal features, but this is does not mean that the architecture should be poorly designed. Even with a weakly implemented yet well designed base, it would be easier to take this minimal wiki and upgrade it into something very powerful. I guess what my very first recommendation (before even a name) is that we have a flexible, well-designed archiecture, preferrably with an MVC pattern, with RESTful-like (URL) mapping, etc. I believe that this will be integral to the successful adoption in the community because it allows for very expansive modification. I will be looking over some other features to recommend. Wherein shall we officially submit our recommendations? Here? And is there a specific way to do so? (This is more of a conversation-generating question.) M.T.
