On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Kurt D. Starsinic wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a council of wise elders who give advice on
> module naming, when they feel that their wisdom is applicable. A more
> accurate version of the above quote might be:
>
> `Generally, a lack of response can be taken as an indication
> that there is nothing blatantly stupid about your proposal.'
Well, maybe what I'd prefer is a positive response saying, "Yes, you can
have namespace Foo." I know there is a reluctance to give out top level
namespaces (for very good reasons). When I send a message discussing two
of them at once (Exception & StackTrace) and I get no response, I don't
really interpret that as a go-ahead to just upload and then expect to get
listed on the modules list (which is important to me as I want the things
I upload to be visible or otherwise why bother uploading).
> Some of us appreciate some imagined level of privacy. What benefit
> will you achieve from knowing each member's name and email address?
Actually I wasn't suggesting email addresses, just names. Seeing as how I
know something about a lot of the people from the list from seeing their
involvement in other fora (p5p, other perl lists, etc.) I'm just curious
who they are. And keeping it unavailable seems to serve little
purpose. I could figure it out by browsing a few months worth of archives
but again, why should I have to bother? Yes, I know you'll refer me to
your <IMHO></IMHO> block below.
> > 2. What do those people's responsibilities consist of (particularly of
> > interest if different people do different things)?
>
> Their responsibility is to listen when they have time, and to consider
> the future of CPAN before they speak.
I was more curious if any effort had been made to divide the
responsibilities at all in terms of giving certain people responsibility
for certain pieces of the overall namespace.
> There is very little law on PAUSE. To quote 04pause.html, `Please, talk
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] before you decide upon the namespace'. Note the use of
> `please' and the absence of `must'. Certain top-level namespaces (e.g.,
> Sun::, DBI::) are controlled by force of law, and are documented as such.
> Otherwise, you are simply requested to play nicely with others.
Yes, but I want to get listed in the main list, as I said before, so I can
actually get my code out there. Therefore I need the cooperation of this
list.
> I certainly want to support your efforts and the efforts of others to
> contribute to CPAN, but I don't see how you've been kept from contributing.
> I find CPAN (specifically PAUSE) to be unbelievably open, and fairly well
> documented. Your legitimate complaints seem to be based in not finding,
> reading, understanding, and/or trusting the documentation. Do you think
> there's a documentation problem, an access problem, or another sort of
> problem?
I think its a documentation problem then. Specifically, I think there
needs to be a significantly better mechanism for registering namespaces
(top-level or otherwise). Maybe a registration list that we could check
after sending messages to this list. For example, I consider myself to
own the Log::Dispatch::* namespace but do I really own this? By own I
mean I should have final say over whether a Log::Dispatch::Foo module can
be individually listed on the modules page.
Basically what I want is this sequence or something similar:
- I send a request for namespace Foo::Bar to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Maybe I get a response saying 'No, you dunderhead, you can't have it.
But how about Foo::Bar::Baz?' to which I either reply 'No, I really want
it and here's why?' or 'Ok'. If we don't agree I eventually get a
response saying 'Give up, sucka. You'll never get it.'
- ... Or I get a response saying 'It's yours. Upload to your heart's
content.'
- ... Or I get no response but I check the 'Namespace owner page' and see
my name listed next to Foo::Bar.
That doesn't seem too much to ask and would address all my
frustrations. Basically, the 'lack of response is assent' really isn't
good enough because:
1. Nobody really notices that sentence.
2. Nobody really takes it seriously.
3. They shouldn't take it seriously because it really isn't true!
> <IMHO>I am happy to be outspoken and say that I don't want to make
> things _too_ easy. There's a certain level of commitment that's required
> to participate effectively in CPAN, and I think that's a good thing, because
> what we need most is committed and well-informed participants.</IMHO>
Uh, what's the point? You want the process to be annoying for what
purpose? So I can show you how 'tough' I am by reading the archives?
What do you lose by providing a read-only feed to people?
> That being said, [EMAIL PROTECTED] isn't a discussion forum; it is
> requested that the substantial discussion take place elsewhere first.
Maybe what's really needed is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or @elsewhere)
list. Newgroups just don't seem practical for this purpose (too much
noise on unmoderated groups) but maybe that's just my general dislike of
newgroups.
> I hope that I haven't been discouraging in my tone, unless you're
> easily discouraged, in which case I hope that I was extremely
> discouraging. :^)
Hehe. As you may have noticed, I already have some stuff on CPAN so its
not like I've given up or plan to anytime soon. I just want to help
streamline a process which at this point in time seems a bit too ad
hoc. I know a lot of Perl is ad hoc but in this one area, where there is
a fairly firm control (of namespaces) a little more process would be
beneficial.
-dave
/*==================
www.urth.org
We await the New Sun
==================*/
