Re^7: JETTERO tries to take over Net::IMAP::Simple on PAUSE (co)

You can assign as many admins as you like on pause

So I've heard it claimed. When I and another pointed out that the interface doesn't actually appear to support this, silence was the only response. (Re^6: Losing faith in CPAN - unresponsive module authors (ownership--))

I really don't see what's so hard about that

You presume I am even that active on CPAN. For most modules, that assumption is broken. I want to set up my modules so that others can contribute to them even after I get hit by a bus or become a Quarker, even for modules that nobody has yet expressed an interest in contributing to. And I want people to be able to contribute without there having to first be one person who has the unnatural motivation to play "stalker" for 6 months and then beg admins to deign to allow contribution. It would be even cooler if others could do the same. I really don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

- tye

Comment on Re^7: JETTERO tries to take over Net::IMAP::Simple on PAUSE (co)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: JETTERO tries to take over Net::IMAP::Simple on PAUSE (co) by jettero (Monsignor) on May 26, 2009 at 18:19 UTC
Yeah, the language in my post doesn't match your reply because I quickly found that you cannot give admin to others, only upload. I still say you could sort it out with WWW::Mechanize. I really don't think they'd object. I bet you could even get the github guys to add a service updater gadget. You could also fork pause on github and just write the patch. I wonder if andk would pull it in. There's two obstacles. Since people already use co-maint and expect it to mean a certain thing, you'd have to create a new perm name for co-primary or something. Second, you couldn't just give primary maint to more than one person because the module list only has a spot for one author name. ... hrm, I also definitely understand you. I don't know why you think I don't. I'm just thinking of ways around the problem. Believe me, I'm underwhelmed by this process so far -- on the other hand, I'd really hate it if I woke up one morning and they pulled the maintainership so I couldn't upload a new version... or worse, that someone else uploaded a version that changed the API all around and I had no way to block it -- not that I write anything anybody cares about. I'm just saying that some people definitely don't need this wiki stuff. I can't imagine trying to use LWP if anybody could just go in and change the meaning of get(). And while the vast majority of the edits would likely be well meaning, some wouldn't be. And some of those well meaning ones would be pretty bad. I'm sure you've seen the SoPW section here? -Paul	[reply]
Re^9: JETTERO tries to take over Net::IMAP::Simple on PAUSE (co) by tye (Sage) on May 26, 2009 at 18:33 UTC
Yes, as I said, we can route around roadblocks and we will. The more complicated the route, the less likely others are to replicate it, the less useful of an impact it has. Which is why the roadblock and the refusal to even hear criticism of the roadblock is distasteful. Rather than chide me about the infrastructure I could build to route around the roadblock, why don't you write to a PAUSE admin about fixing the problem at its source by making the roadblock optional? - tye	[reply]
Re^10: JETTERO tries to take over Net::IMAP::Simple on PAUSE (co) by jettero (Monsignor) on May 26, 2009 at 18:36 UTC
No chide intended. But I don't really feel the need to write them about it. It doesn't bother me as much as you. Why don't you write them? See if you can get alester aka PerlBuzz to do a story you wrote? Why don't you fork on github and write the patch? Seems silly to take it out on me. I don't really disagree. I just don't think it's that big a deal. -Paul	[reply]


Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
	PerlMonks