On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 14:17 -0500, David Lu!! wrote: 
> Thanks everyone for your feedback to my idea. There's a lot of good
> conversation here.
> 
> The conversation has strayed a little bit from my original idea of
> ways to find common holes in the ROS package coverage. My experience
> with Uservoice was on a much smaller project, and I agree it probably
> won't scale well. However, in response to Thomas's comment, I think
> you and I have both have had experience with spending time on a
> personal need for a package (pr2_python), only to discover that other
> people needed it and were working on it. I'd love to see a solution to
> that problem that got people developing for ROS at different sites
> communicating more and theoretically collaborating more.
> 
> As for the bigger problem of maintaining the wild ROS packages: I echo
> Jonathan's sentiment about contributing to others' stacks being
> painful at times. The fact is, for better and for worse, the ROS.org
> wiki hierarchy is very flat. This means on the plus side that everyone
> is able to contribute on equal standing. The downside is that, beyond
> self-created stacks, there is no categorization of packages. That
> means
> A) There is no central repository for all arm_navigation packages (for
> example) (other than search, which isn't wonderfully functional)

I made an attempt at this earlier for sensor packages.
http://www.ros.org/wiki/Sensors

Replicating this for other packages would provide more of a community
curated approach to categorization as opposed to automatic.

-- 
Bill Morris <bill@iheartengineering.com>
I Heart Engineering
http://www.iheartengineering.com
<3