Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2018
On 28 February 2018 at 15:54, Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 02/26/2018 05:16 PM, demerphq wrote: >> On 26 February 2018 at 12:05, Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 02/23/2018 08:54 PM, Karen Etheridge wrote: >>>> Please, please be careful who you transfer permissions to -- "any >>>> interested person" leaves open the possibility that someone meaning >>>> well could take over who is not sufficiently qualified to maintain >>>> modules of such importance to the Perl ecosystem. >>> Agreed. >>> >>>> If you wish to give up first-come permissions entirely, I would >>>> suggest giving first-come to one of the PAUSE admins or the pumpking, >>>> who can suitably vet any successors. >>> Furthermore, any module that is dual-core should have at least two >>> maintainers (or at least two co-maints). If you can also add "P5P" to >>> those, it would allow p5p to make releases when either one or both are >>> not available. >> Is there a reason we dont just make Perl upstream for Memoize and >> Tie::File and move these modules from cpan/ to dist/? >> >> Then neither of these concerns are material. The perl5porters would handle them. > > The only reason not to do it is in case someone outside p5p would like > to maintain them. But then we have to decide if they are competent. And if they ask and we decide they aren't then we are insulting someone who is trying to help. If the maint burden is low, then I think we should just take them into core. If people want to adopt MJD's non core modules then fine, but if we are going to impose restrictions on who can do the maintenance, including vetting them, we should just take them onto ourself. That way we guarantee enough maintainers and we dont risk insulting someone. cheers, Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next