Mark Steinberger writes:

 > Clear criteria for classification might be useful, here.

well, thats the nub of the problem, isn't it. there is an alternative,
which is to categorize by type, eg

 - useful general hacks
 - class files for publishers and journals
 - letters
 - font related

but i personally don't find that helpful - we still need some way of
deciding which ones to tell eg Thomas Esser or Eberhard Mattes to
distribute to everyone.

i suggest that going beyond my 3 - way is too hard. so

 * we don't have any choice about 1; its what They give us
 * by default everything is in 3, ie useful if you feel like looking
    at it
 * things go into 2 by acclamation; its a staging post to 1, if you
   like. things like carlisle, calc, fancyhdr, and cite seem obviously
   useful on any system, whereas nassflow is probably only used by 3

one thing i can promise is that if anyone does classify LaTeX
packages,  i will instantiate it on TeX Live. please note that the TeX
Live coding is present in Graham Williams catalogue, so thats an
excellent place to encapsulate the decisions.