I can't remember what the "precedence to denying organizational PAUSE id's" was. Can anyone else?
Tim. On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 11:42:39PM -0500, Dave Paris wrote: > I'm aware there has been some precedence to denying organizational PAUSE > id's in the past. I'd like to revisit this for the following reasons: > > 1) The company at which I'm the VP of Software Development has created > a number of modules which we feel could be of benefit to the Perl > Community at large. > > 2) Perl is used in a large number of varied system, including > production, development, R&D, QC/QA, and data scrubbing. Our code is > stable, clean and well documented. > > 3) The issue at hand is that any PAUSE id our modules are uploaded > under *must* be an organizational id, as opposed to any individual > programmer. This ensures that only a select few of our staff can access > PAUSE, but that we do have redundancy to support the modules. This also > ensures that, should an employee leave our company, they are not able to > claim any rights to the module(s), nor are we locked out of > accessing/updating/caring for our modules. > > 4) I could make a few more points, but I think the above are sufficient > for now. > > I hope you'll reconsider the current standing practice and approve the > issuing of organizational PAUSE ids. > > Thank you, > -dsp
