I'm writing a play (specifically, a musical). Scripts have fairly complex and fairly specific formatting demands, so, as a professional LaTeX typesetter, writing it in LaTeX was a no-brainer. There are four or five different packages in the library for writing scripts and I tried most of them, but, well, I ended up basically re-writing Robert Jahrling's "stage.cls" from scratch, adding a bunch of new features and whatnot.
I imagine most people who write a package, even for themselves, figure that their package is better than what's already in the library; that doesn't mean it really is. (Cue rueful chuckle.) Cluttering up the catalog isn't a Good Thing. On the other hand, if nobody contributed packages, we wouldn't have any, and that would be terrible.
So I looked into making a Proper Package. Yikes. Creating the .ins and .dtx files looks like at least as much work as I spent creating the .sty file itself.
But that's okay. I'm not complaining about the work required to create a proper, adequately documented package. I'm just not certain that there's actually anybody that would care. The subset of active LaTeX users who are creating scripts is probably fairly small. Further, if somebody is just trying to make an existing script look good, some of the existing packages are adequate for that purpose. Mine is specifically helpful if one is changing or revising the script; you're writing something new, so character names might change, scenes get relocated; all that sort of bookkeeping that LaTeX can do so brilliantly but that the existing packages don't really take advantage of.
So. Any suggestions for how I might determine if there was sufficient interest/need in Dave's 'theatre.sty' package to warrant taking the time to prepare it as a Proper Package?