It's always nice to the rules of playground clearly defined. ;) I don't think anyone wants to create a policy that increases the work load of the overworked, vastly underpaid, and certainly under-worshiped CPAN deities (here after referred to as CDs). However, in this particular case it's clear that the developers aren't going to work it out on there own and "play nice". Is it possible, only under special circumstances, to invoke the CDs to ask that a module be renamed or risk removal?
I suspect that to date potential Namespace Invaders from the Planet Mars (NIPMs) have been deterred by the assumption that CDs can and would intervene. Stating unequivocally that the CDs will not interfere in matters concerning mere mortal developers may be an invitation to NIPMs to hop in their flying saucers and to head for the nearest CPAN mirror. The value of a strategic NIPM deterrent shouldn't be underestimated. -J -- On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 05:52:27PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote: > As a lesser (the least'est of all really) CPAN "deity", let me just say > that we've gotten along very well with convention so far, and the number > of problems has been pretty small. > > In general, historically CPAN has avoided anything that might disuade > people from uploading modules. If someone uploads into the "wrong" place > then in almost all cases, it's fairly trivial to talk them down and move > the module elsewhere, and in almost all the remaining cases while the > module might offend some people's sense of elegance of taste, they are > not actively obstructive. > > Also note that the current situation in which nobody "owns" the > namespaces has other important benefits. For example, an obstructive > author can't actively prevent newer authors from using a sub-namespace, > for example to create a Foo::Simple module. > > And it encourages authors to work out issues on their own, without going > running to a higher authority. > > That same lack of ownership means that when an author goes missing, hen > we can quite easily hand over control to someone else. > > On the other hand, if we were to start treating namespaces as some form > of property right, than a hell of lot of things would probably change, > most of them bad. We'd have to start codifying and enforcing policy, the > amount of work required to mediate and resolve disputes would go up, and > things would generally be LESS favourable to the end users. > > I (and I don't speak for anyone but myself here) don't think that any > benefits flowing from formalised namespace control would be worth it in > the end, and I'm quite happy with the situation where Andreas is really > the person that "owns" the entire CPAN module namespace, and as a > notional "head of state" just stays the hell out of the way 99% of the time. > > In general, it means calmer heads usually prevail. > > Adam K > > P.S. Note that while DateTime::Cron::Simple was uploaded, DateTime::Tiny > was not (or at least hasn't yet, and I still promise to have that > conversation here before I do anything, but don't have time for the > conversation right now). > > Joshua Hoblitt wrote: > >Perhaps it's time for a policy decision from the CPAN deities as to > >whether namespace ownership ship is purely a social convention or if it > >can be enforced by booting trespassers. > > > >-J > > > >-- > >On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 09:33:23AM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote: > >>On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Ernesto Hern?ndez-Novich wrote: > >> > >>>Several months ago I started packaging DateTime::Cron::Simple for Debian > >>>GNU/Linux as part of the process of packaging dependencies for a large > >>>perl-based CMS. At the time, I noted that DateTime::Cron::Simple does > >>>not have > >>>a license and contacted the author in order to fix that. > >>> > >>>As it stands today, > >>> > >>>http://search.cpan.org/~bits/DateTime-Cron-Simple-0.2/Simple.pm > >>> > >>>the module still has no license at all making it unusable for all > >>>practical > >>>purposes. In fact, it shouldn't even be on CPAN. How can this be fixed? > >>No idea. THat module is not part of the DateTime project. The author is > >>just using the same namespace. When I contacted him about this he > >>basically told me to f*ck off. > >> > >> > >>-dave > >> > >>/*=================================================== > >>VegGuide.Org www.BookIRead.com > >>Your guide to all that's veg. My book blog > >>===================================================*/ > > >
pgpQNLbeAekaq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
