Front page | perl.module-authors |
Postings from November 2011
Re: The CPAN Covenant
From: Bill Ward
November 17, 2011 10:38
Re: The CPAN Covenant
Message ID: CAKGT8WottQ9XBTCte85J-5k0wdZbD+N6Y-f-XaGZnn4=S0rZSQ@mail.gmail.com
Sounds good to me ... I hereby accept this covenant for the modules I
maintain, present and future, until such time as I indicate otherwise in
email to email@example.com
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Neil Bowers <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> A week ago I posted a proposal for a voluntary pledge, which CPAN
> module authors could sign up to. With Bill Ward's tweak to the wording,
> the discussion on per-distribution stating, and generalising the RT point:
> I hereby give email@example.com permission to grant co-maintainership
> to [% distribution %], if all the following conditions are met:
> (1) I haven't released the module for a year or more
> (2) There are outstanding issues in the module's public bug tracker
> (3) Email to my CPAN email address hasn't been answered after a month
> (4) The requester wants to make worthwhile changes that will benefit CPAN
> In the event of my death, then the time-limits in (1) and (3) do not
> In the discussion on module-authors, and talking to people at the London
> Perl Workshop (LPW): about 60% thought it was a good idea, 20% a bad idea,
> 20% indifferent. Most of the 'bad' being "it works that way already".
> Talking to people at LPW, a number commented (paraphrasing):
> Just email the author, wait a month,
> then push firstname.lastname@example.org for a handover
> Which to me doesn't quite match the spirit of the PAUSE "taking over"
> described at http://pause.perl.org/pause/query?ACTION=pause_04about
> I recently took over a module after 2 months, during which I tried a number
> of ways to track down the author, mailed various other people, and posted
> to module-authors. That seemed appropriate, because the author had clearly
> put a lot of thought and effort into this, and his other modules.
> So, I went to Andreas Koenig, since he has more experience of module
> than most of us! The group behind email@example.com have to balance two
> respecting individual authors, and helping the continued development of
> If none of the group know the current author, they have to err on
> the author's side, not CPAN:
> "I've heard too many upset developers going berserk because they felt
> [their module was expropriated]"
> Asked whether he thought an explicit pledge would be useful, Andreas said:
> "An explicit statement in a distribution like the one in your picture
> would make our lives a lot easier"
> As a number of others commented, Andreas feels it should be stated on
> a per-distribution basis, and not per-author.
> In a side-discussion, it was pointed out that sometimes an author would
> be happy for someone else to take over the module.
> In this case the covenant would become:
> I hereby give firstname.lastname@example.org permission to grant lead authorship
> to [% distribution %], if the following conditions are met:
> (1) There are outstanding issues in the module's public bug tracker
> (2) The requester wants to make worthwhile changes that will benefit CPAN
> There are at least three ways this could be provided:
> (a) a file included in the distribution. Eg Covenant.txt
> (b) text in the README
> (c) a feature on PAUSE, where you can select the "ownership status"
> or similar
> The problem with (c), is that it's not very public; the information needs
> to be closely associated with the distribution itself. To make things
> easy for all involved, I think (a) is probably the best. The downside with
> this is that having lost interest in one of your distributions, you now
> have to do a release to let the (Perl) world know. The alternative would
> be to email the covenant to email@example.com: that's publicly archived,
> so your covenant could be found, especially once a convention
> has been established.
Check out my LEGO blog at http://www.brickpile.com
Follow/friend me: facebook.com/billward • flickr.com/photos/billward •