I'm not entirely convinced of the CPANForum's usefulness (unless it has some way to automatically email the registered owner of a module each time a question about it comes up or something, and then, of course, a way for each author to tell it to go away and stop bothering them). But adding it here? That is just as bad - and since CPANForum already exists, it's actually worse (compounds the problem rather than fixes it).

As for using Perlmonks Discussion as a place for discussing modules - that seems wrong to me, too. This is about discussing perlmonks, not modules (that's what SoPW is for). Which, I suppose, makes this particular thread on-topic here, but what the thread is about would not be on-topic here, IMO.

Any "reformulation" for here ... could just as easily be added to CPANForum. The question is, is any author going to pay attention to here any more than CPANForum? I doubt either one has an edge.

I'm also not really convinced of the usefulness of CPAN::Forum, but it has email notifications, so you can register for emails whenever a post is made to a specific thread - which I consider OK for a module. I guess the process is that you open a thread for your module and then register for email notification, so to you as the module owner, it's more or less like a mailing list with a comfortable web archive - which I consider good.

You can sign up to be notified about all postings on a given module, no need to start a thread.

I don't know if it's possible to reply to an email and have it appear on the board but it's open source so if you can think it you can make it.

Peronsally I'm happy to see it because I haven't bothered setting up a mailing list but I can see how those who have mightn't like it. Maybe the author of a module should have some control over what cpanforum does for his modules.

It's a mailinglist if you can actually send mail to it. As an author of CPAN modules, I'm not interested in mail I can't respond to. I have a name for such mail: it's called SPAM.

I publish an email address on all my modules where people can report bugs or problems. I have a CPAN id with corresponding email address people can send their mail to. People can report bugs via the RT system. That's enough I'd say. I really don't want to hunt perlmonks, comp.lang.perl.m{isc,modules,moderated} and god knows how many other fora people think is nice to have to discuss CPAN modules.

Fellow Tanktalus wrote:

As for using Perlmonks Discussion as a place for discussing modules - that seems wrong to me, too. This is about discussing perlmonks, not modules (that's what SoPW is for). Which, I suppose, makes this particular thread on-topic here, but what the thread is about would not be on-topic here, IMO.

Dear fellow, I beg your pardon. I don't make myself clear as water at the first post.

I'm using PerlMonks Discussion to suggest a new Category, which name could be Module Parliament, the place where issues like module architecture and adoption of orphaned modules could take place publically, inside PerlMonks (that is a well-advertised, well-known forum for Perl and Community-related discussions).

Hope that now my point is clear like the water from the Monastery fountain.

Peace and Glory

-- monsieur_champs

Why is it that whenever someone creates something for the Perl community, there is a ton of moaning? People are free to create websites (and software) as they please.

No, I do understand that part. If you've got a problem with a module, you may reasonably expect results from a website billed for exactly that purpose. And if you're a module author, you now have to go out and look for these things in yet another place. Which was kinda my first impression. What gets me, though, is the idea that replacing one "bad" (using their definition of bad) idea with another idea that is exactly the same ... is actually a solution. ;-)

What moaning? Someone asks if people thought it was a good idea and those people (mostly module authors) gave good reasons why they thought it wasn't a good idea. Read the thread.

/J\

Actually Perl Monks Discussion is for discussing issues relating to the Monastery; from the top of that page "This area is for discussion relating to this site. If you're looking to ask a question about a Perl problem you should go to the Seekers of Perl Wisdom page.". A discussion relating to a CPAN module would probably be best posted in Seekers of Perl Wisdom.

To fit in SoPW it would need to actually be a question about a module. Starting a general discussion about a module would be a matter for Meditations IMO, though a posting a Module Review could also be a starting point for a discussion.

Well according to Where should I post X? the Meditations section is for "Epiphanies related to programming and perl in general". I know that is not necesarily how it is used but SOPW still seems to be a better place for the discussion to me. I would assume that the disucsion has some purpose and the person initiating it wants to get something (wisdom) out of it. Pedantry aside though meditations is probably OK too :) If the discussion were to take place in Reviews then I would expect the initial post would have to be itself a review :)

While doubtless most module authors are regulars at perlmonks, the monastery is quite separate from CPAN and serves a different purpose.

Personally, I welcome cpanforums, but I wholeheartedly sympathise with those authors who already maintain resources like mailing lists for feedback and don't want yet another place to have to check. Perhaps with a bit of thought and coding there could be a degree of convergence between existing module mailing lists and cpanforums?

One advantage of cpanforums does strike me though: a year or so ago, I was having trouble getting a module to work at all, and wanted to contact the author. I tried half a dozen different addresses that the author had listed at one time or another, and all bounced. If a module has been abandoned, at least Cpanforums gives the community the opportunity to advertise and/or discuss the fact in an obvious and well advertised location, with direct links to the module page on CPAN.

c.

g0n wrote:

One advantage of cpanforums does strike me though: a year or so ago, I was having trouble getting a module to work at all, and wanted to contact the author. I tried half a dozen different addresses that the author had listed at one time or another, and all bounced. If a module has been abandoned, at least Cpanforums gives the community the opportunity to advertise and/or discuss the fact in an obvious and well advertised location, with direct links to the module page on CPAN.




And that's why I'm posting this here: this is the meta-PerlMonks discussion section, and the place to suggest software, policy, and behaviour enhancements.

What I think about CPANForums is that this is Yet Another Place to Post Module discussion (not support, nor bugs! -- threre are specific, well-advertised places for them).

To make mine your example, if an author abandon a module, there should be a place at PerlMonks where the community could discuss about this and volunteers could offer your free time to take care of a module. Also, this place could offer RSS feeds for module authors about his/her modules, so they don't need to look for posts at PerlMonks.

What I'm effectivelly suggesting is that PerlMonks offer kind of a Module Forum, where architectural issues and orphanage/adoption of modules could take place, without interfering with the http://rt.cpan.org (for bugs) and the author's emails and discussion list (for support).

This way, the community could concentrate its activities arround a single place, easying maintainer's life and making simpler and fair the adoption of orphaned modules.

But this, of course, is just my humble opinion about what I've read about this issue.

-- monsieur_champs