On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:48:04PM -0400, brian d foy wrote: > In article > <CAOeq1c-cy1xPfs40OmHW2OCxH_6LLwvWKaUadGi7b06=hhq...@mail.gmail.com>, > David Golden <x...@xdg.me> wrote: > > > That's why I think we make the parallel to our process and criteria > > for 'taking over'. I.e. author not responsive. If the author is > > responsive, then PAUSE admins take no action. > > I don't see any benefit from the work. If you game it out > > > If someone wants to take over the module, we have the process for that > and it happens. > > If someone wants to give up the module, they can. > > If no one wants to take over the module and there's no one to give it > up, does transferring the module improve the universe enough to offset > the extra work we do? I don't think it does.
The key case I can see as an advantage is if somebody is happy to put together a release now but doesn't want to take ownership beyond handling any bugs that directly result from that release. I see this a fair bit, and I'm not sure we really have a process for "willing to be one time release manager, would also like to see the dist flagged so if somebody wants to adopt it long term they can do so" yet, and this seems the closest to such a process that's yet been proposed. -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/ Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our Catalyst commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.
