Rafael, First, let me say that PAUSE admins are not here to be mediators for project disputes.
But... since you're bringing the issues here, let me say that there are generally two ways that a distribution winds up with mixed primary maintainers: (a) "Marriage" model -- two distributions merge into one (e.g. Class::MOP into Moose) (b) "Mitosis" model -- a comaintainer uploads a dist with new modules added (without using "X_authority" metadata or from before that was supported by PAUSE). The comaintainer is getting "primary" because of the act of uploading based on their "comaint" authority and PAUSE doesn't know any better. If your work fell under the "marriage" model, then you're saying you want a "divorce". OK. Show me the distribution before the merge where you had primary permissions, I'll restore them, and you can split your stuff out again. If your work fell under the "mitosis" model, please, please, please, sort this out within the project community. Think about it from our perspective.. what if PAUSE admins were to restore your primary maintainer status just for a few modules? What then? Would you drop comaint on everyone else, thus blocking the project from releasing authorized dists? Would you release a new, separate dist with just those modules, possibly with changes that break the project? None of these scenarios give a lot of incentive for PAUSE admins to help, since the motivation appears destructive rather than constructive, the end result is a broken project, and then the other maintainers will be right back here asking for PAUSE admins to sort everything out again. If you can't reconcile with the project, then the most constructive thing to do is to fork the project -- release the whole thing (not just your modules) under a new namespace. That way, existing CPAN end-users are not affected by a dispute within the project. As I'm not here to be a mediator, this is the last I'll say about this issue. I really hope that with time, you and the project community can come together, find the common ground you once had, and start writing awesome software together again. David On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Rafael Kitover <rkito...@prismnet.com> wrote: > There were modules in the DBIx::Class::Schema::Loader dist and the > Catalyst::Model::DBIC::Schema dist that I uploaded that I never gave anyone > permissions for. > > Matt S. Trout reassigned primary maintainership for those modules away from > me without my approval. > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 at 7:14 AM, David Golden wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Rafael Kitover <rkito...@prismnet.com >> (mailto:rkito...@prismnet.com)> wrote: >> > Today, Matt S. Trout took away my comaint on the module with no >> > justification, as well as for Catalyst::Model::DBIC::Schema, most of which >> > I wrote as well. >> >> >> >> Hi, Rafael. >> >> I'm sorry to hear about the conflict you're having. I can understand >> how frustrated you must be to "lose control" over code you wrote. >> >> Speaking as a PAUSE maintainer, we don't want to arbitrate >> intra-project conflicts. >> >> Matt has explained that he took action with the permission of the >> primary maintainer(s). If you believe that to be incorrect, I >> strongly encourage you to appeal to the primary maintainer, who has >> the power to restore permissions. >> >> Beyond that, a fork is probably the best option (as usually happens >> when project contributors have irreconcileable differences). >> >> Regards, >> David >> >> -- >> David Golden <x...@xdg.me (mailto:x...@xdg.me)> >> Take back your inbox! → http://www.bunchmail.com/ >> Twitter/IRC: @xdg > > > -- David Golden <x...@xdg.me> Take back your inbox! → http://www.bunchmail.com/ Twitter/IRC: @xdg
