Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Moving modules@perl.org here 7 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.

  • Clarification, please (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ziggy (25) on 2002.01.08 9:20 (#2843) Journal
    Are you asking to:
    • move the mechanism by which namespace requests are submitted (use.perl slash plugin vs. modules@perl.org)?
    • increase the number of people who are responsible for responding to (and approving?) namespace requests? (the members of modules@perl.org can't really be blamed for being so busy)
    • make a fundemental change in the management of CPAN namespaces, including the switch to use perl and the increase of namespace monitors?

    I really don't care which goal you have in mind. What I really care about is that this doesn't get mired down into the same old "it's broken"/"no it isn't" type of discussion between frustrated users and status quo. Especially if it's going to span multiple fora (modules@perl.org, p5p, useperl, etc.).

    Ideally this is the kind of thing that could be discussed at an annual p5p f2f. However, if we take that approach, we'll be setting ourselves up for a 36 hour meeting about issues impacting the community, about 3 hours of which may actually deal with the stewardship of the perl sources (the true meaning of the p5p f2f).

    • Well what I really meant to do was raise some discussion about it :-)

      I think number two is the most important thing. People are pointed at modules@perl.org to get ideas for what to name their modules. But for example if an XML person went there with a request, it would fall on deaf ears because I don't think there are many (any?) xml experts on that list.

      Once a community has discussed naming, then it might need to feed back into a more formal mechanism to get onto the modules list. But most of the compl
      • I'm wondering if this would create overhead for pudge/other submitters as someone needs to approve the topics that go into a channel? Or am I misunderstanding something?
        • Yes, but it would be fairly easy to add a few moderators. I mean, slashdot copes with thousands of submissions a day - I'm sure we wouldn't have more than 30 or so, which is about the current daily traffic on modules@perl.org (and they would still have to deal with new user and pauseid requests). And quite a few of that 30 or so is replies. So thinking along the lines of 10 module requests a day, it's not too much work to see which are valid module requests and approve the story... But then I wouldn't want
          • True, and it seems like a good idea. At least to get some discussion going. I for one would like to see more stuff happening here on use perl.

            But I wonder if PerlMonks would be a better forum for this? (I don't frequent PerlMonks though). Thoughts?
            • I don't know about PerlMonks. I find their user interface confusing. I get lost every time I go there, and there are no breadcrumbs to let me find my way back out...
          • The idea is that whoever wanted to do this would have to come up with a plan for how it would work (the same as the books.perl.org thing), and then we could discuss details. The simple answer is "yes, it can be done." Details will get worked out as we go along.
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.