develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2018

Re: MJD modules are orhapns; please adopt them

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Sawyer X
February 28, 2018 15:21
Re: MJD modules are orhapns; please adopt them
Message ID:

On 02/28/2018 05:07 PM, demerphq wrote:
> On 28 February 2018 at 15:54, Sawyer X <> wrote:
>> On 02/26/2018 05:16 PM, demerphq wrote:
>>> On 26 February 2018 at 12:05, Sawyer X <> 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.

This is a subtle point. MJD has to decide who it is, not us. He passes
the mantle, unless he moved it to ADOPTME and then it's - I believe -
PAUSE admins. I'm sure MJD will take into account our request to have
more than one (co-)maintainer and I'm certain he would like it to be
someone reliable.

On competency, It is easier to be direct and say "We believe we will do
a better job at this" now than later. It is honest and earnest.

But I don't think this replies directly to your comment of, "this could
be picked up by someone who will not do a good job," and my answer to
this is: You're right.

> 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.

I don't object to this course, as long as MJD is willing. I will just
note that finding people interested in helping us with these modules
could help reduce the effort on maintaining it in the future to beyond us.

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About