[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
I think your guideline text is good. It's quite clear, and readable
too.
But I'm confusd by this subsequent comment:
> However, I also think it's important to show how you can
> come up with a good compromise if you're a package author who just can't
> let go of your fun package name. In my mind, showing in the
> documentation how to compromise on this would go a long way towards
> making package authors not feel like they're being micromanaged.
The last paragraph of your draft text, about goblin-functions,
> Instead, I finally opt for a compromise: I'll still use "Goblin" when
> documenting the package and prefix names in my code with "goblin-", but
> I decide to submit it to GNU ELPA as "goblin-functions". While this
> isn't as descriptive as "gobject", it does at least provide a hint to
> the reader that this is a collection of functions (intended for other
> Lisp authors, as opposed to end users).
seems to do that -- so why is a change needed?