While there is a framework in place for testing and peer review of modules, fully testing a module can be a very time consuming undertaking. Once you have

• Downloaded the module
• Resolved the dependencies
• Installed the module
• Familiarised yourself with the purpose and interfaces
• Written code to test out the module
• Reported on any problems

You've put quite a lot of time and effort in.

As an alternative for those who don't have the available time, can I suggest a second tier of testing? It would take minutes only to briefly review the perldoc only of a module, and report back to the author where

• the docs are unclear
• the docs are incomplete or sketchy
• the described syntax is nonintuitive or unfriendly
• (any other appropriate guidance or suggestions...)

To skim through the docs for an average module on CPAN, without attempting to download, install and run the code, could take perhaps 15 minutes to half an hour. I think many more people could spare that amount of time to review new or amended modules.

At the very least, as well as improving the quality of documentation, it would be a second pair of eyes looking at the design assumptions, which can only be a help.

If anyone agrees, perhaps this would be a good place to discuss what specific elements to look for in a review?

Charles

Update: Several people have raised the concern that this potentially would result in low quality feedback from people who have not used a module and hence may not understand what it is seeking to do. I should stress that this suggestion is intended to widen the range of modules that get some kind of review, rather than add to the volume of feedback on mature & widely used modules.

The following notes would be my suggested starting point:

• Only perform a POD review on modules that do not have a cpan rating
• State at the beginning of any feedback that this is a POD review only
• Only review modules that relate to an area in which you have some knowledge
• Don't necessarily expect an answer, and do not follow up your communication unless invited to do so
• Try to give suggestions rather than just criticism