On Nov 18, 2011, at 14:42 , Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * yan...@babyl.dyndns.org <yan...@babyl.dyndns.org> [2011-11-18 16:00]: >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 02:06:54PM +0100, "Burak G?rsoy" wrote: >> Very good point. I'll extract the pledge wording itself to a separate >> distribution (CPAN::Covenant, CPAN::AuthorPledge, CPAN::Pledge?). > > Covenant seems much more appropriate a term than pledge since the author > isn’t making a promise about action or behaviour, but is rather granting > permission for such to be taken with his property. I think some extra > qualification would be useful though. Only I can think of nothing that > isn’t a mouthful. It’s about maintainer privileges, but how do you put > that so it rolls off the tongue? “Author” is not exact. “Maint” came to > mind but it sounds like it it might mean that you are making a promise > to maintain the module, which is not the point. OwnershipCovenant is > probably the most accurate, but ugh… Anyway, I’ll put the brush aside.
A few, more legalese-sounding, thoughts... Continuity, Policy, Survivorship, Estate, Succession, Escheat From the Wikipedia article for Escheat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escheat): "Escheat is a common law doctrine which transfers the property of a person who dies without heirs to the crown or state. It serves to ensure that property is not left in limbo without recognised ownership." The bit about not leaving things in limbo seems similar to the idea being bounced around. It's also the word that banks use for dormant accounts. Of course, there's no "crown or state" in this case but the CPAN community could fill that role. Maybe "EscheatPolicy" or "EscheatProcess" would be appropriate?
