On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Matt S Trout wrote:
>
> If we decide that the policy side is appropriate, I'm happy enough being
> the mechanism (i.e. the one who goes and kicks the PAUSE interface); I'm
> sure I can find us a couple more volunteers who people wouldn't be too scared
> of having a
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:19:01AM -0400, brian d foy wrote:
> In article
> ,
> David Golden wrote:
>
> > I think it "improves the universe" by letting the community flag
> > abandon-ware in a consistent, centralized way (because it winds up
> > mirrored in 06perms).
>
> I don't think that act
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 04:48:04PM -0400, brian d foy wrote:
> In article
> ,
> David Golden 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.
>
In article
,
David Golden wrote:
> I think it "improves the universe" by letting the community flag
> abandon-ware in a consistent, centralized way (because it winds up
> mirrored in 06perms).
I don't think that actually improves the situation. How is this
different than a person judging on hi
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:48 PM, brian d foy wrote:
> 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.
I think it "improves the universe" by letting the com
In article
,
David Golden 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
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 1:10 AM, brian d foy wrote:
>> (1) Anyone can propose that any distribution (and it's contained
>> packages) have ADOPTME be added as co-maint on the grounds of it being
>> abandoned
>
> This is the only hard part of the process. I'd consider doing it the
> same way that we
In article
,
David Golden wrote:
> (1) Anyone can propose that any distribution (and it's contained
> packages) have ADOPTME be added as co-maint on the grounds of it being
> abandoned
This is the only hard part of the process. I'd consider doing it the
same way that we handle module takeovers.
In the "Four Major problems of CPAN" blog post (
http://blogs.perl.org/users/brendan_byrd/2013/03/the-four-major-problems-with-cpan.html
), Brendan Byrd raises the problem of tracking abandoned modules. In
the comments, brian mentions ADOPTME.
Setting aside the majority of the post -- which can c
