At 04:19 PM 4/24/2015, David Nicol wrote: >This is a relief. I was surprised to see implied that the DBI power >mist has the power to change CPAN policy in the described way. >Hopefully this upcoming sensible and balanced statement will include a >facility for helping identify and designate co-maintainers included in >the process of registering modules onto this positively branded list. >I look forward to being able to brag that DBIx::bind_param_inline is >"Approved by the Berlin DBI Committee" or equivalent. > >What will the list of process-conformant vetted modules be called? >Will we get to claim includion in the "Official Maintained DBI Module >List" or what?
I think: none of the above. As long as nothing is published by David Golden, there's nothing to discuss. We should not fall prey to fearmongering, wild guessing and walking ahead of the troops. Many things were discussed, and the first thing that has to be done is make a summary that makes sense, make a proposal that makes even more sense, and await the reactions from you and many others.
This discussion is a discussion that should not happen now, because there is no use for you to discuss this on false premises, and without more knowlegde. And I am not providing any more info. Just be patient, and don't fear the worst, expect something balanced and very useful.
Kind regards, Wendy van Dijk
