No, we don't.
However, we do have caring people looking out for their peers. People,
who might've learned about the caveats of indirect object notation the
hard way and seek to spare otheres from the same suffering, or people
that, albeit realising that there's more than one way to do it, believe
that consistency is not a bad thing either and think that following the
footsteps of the perl core, which, some while ago, eliminated a lot of
indirect object notation in many parts of the core documentation, is a
good thing and improves documentation's accessability and the quality of
our perl ecosystem in general.
While this is certainly not any kind of real bug, I believe it still is
an entirely valid wishlist item that our community should be open to. No
one would possibly object to this ticket being rejected because the
author's personal preference happens to be indirect object notation.
However, calling people names, which is what I consider calling people
"syntax police" to be, isn't going to improve things, but, in the worst
case, drive people away.
I hope that isn't what will happen here.
RT for rt.cpan.org