TL;DR: yeah, what they said. Boyd wrote: > In essence, you're trying to elicit from the authors how they feel about > their module, either: > * I'm easy. I just want it to be useful to people. > * That's my _baby_ you're talking about! > which hides the ugly and bureaucratic detail you're rightfully proposing.
Right now people get fame, glory and rights when they contribute to CPAN. I think it would help if there was a sense of responsibility as well, and a giving of some rights. I get a lot of value out of CPAN, and think of adding modules to the pot as a way of "giving back", rather than CPAN giving me a distribution channel for my work. When I upload something to CPAN, I'd almost now like to think that I'm giving ownership of the module to CPAN, and for the moment I have stewardship. And as long as I exercise that stewardship, no-one else can take it. But if other things become important in my life (again!), I don't want to hold people and CPAN progress up. And since most CPAN related work is done on a voluntary basis, this cannot be mandated. But we can encourage the culture to evolve in a certain direction. Lars wrote: > Metadata can already be attached to distributions in an extensible > fashion. It's really about the code, not the author/maintainer - one > can have different opinions on/policies for different distros. Absolutely. I might treat one of my distros as my baby, but be a bit more easy-going on the others. And another might be done for work, and thus not up for pledging. Neil
