🚀 go-pugleaf

Elat Lerner wrote:

> Yes, a can.workers.* sub-hierarchy makes sense to me.

I've been quite busy, and I haven't had any time to review the proposal,
but I definitely agree that "can.hi-tech-workers" is awkward and that
"can.workers.hi-tech" is an improvement.  However, there isn't much to
show that an entire "can.workers.*" would offer much value (at least not
yet?)

Perhaps the proposed group would fit in well with an existing
subhierarchy, such as can.community.hi-tech  (hrmmm... does
can.community.* really seem suitable?)

I'll need to review the proposal carefully before I can offer any advice
of real value, but I wanted to be sure to suggest that existing
sub-hierarchies be properly considered before considering creating a new
one.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille                              syl@alcor.concordia.ca
 
Systems analyst / Newsmaster                      Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology        Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------