Establishing a recommended statndard for documenting dub packages

[jmh530 via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 19:59:16 UTC, Karabuta wrote:
> Looking through documentations for the various packages 
> available in the dub registry, I noticed that some packages 
> have very good documentation whilst others are quite not there 
> yet. ...
>
> Therefore I suggest the community put-up some kind of 
> documentation guideline to standardize the learning curve for 
> packages/libraries. The IPFS project (ipfs.io) has something 
> like this which makes some things easy to pick up and has 
> motivated me to suggest this idea. What is your opinion on this?

How about that standard applies to phobos while we're at it?