Re: AnyData2/DBD::AnyData2 co-maint
David Nicol <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.perl.modules.dbi.sybase.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAFwScO8FvhKAyRQv+ho5vYmSGfeKKm9kfB5xMW=ptcW_EkBP4g@mail.gmail.com> |
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Wendy G.A. van Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jens, > > You interrupted me at every 5 words I tried to explain about what was discussed at the consensus meetings at the QA Hackathon in Berlin. We had a big argument, and you never ever did let me finish the explanation. You told me how bad the decision was, but you never let me explain the whole stuff. And now you are writing about this and not even waiting for the official stuff to be published. Please wait until the whole decision comes online, David Golden will write a proposal. Really, it will be balanced, and it will make sense. Just calm down and wait. > > Greetz, > Wendy This is a relief. I was surprised to see implied that the DBI power mist has the power to change CPAN policy in the described way. Hopefully this upcoming sensible and balanced statement will include a facility for helping identify and designate co-maintainers included in the process of registering modules onto this positively branded list. I look forward to being able to brag that DBIx::bind_param_inline is "Approved by the Berlin DBI Committee" or equivalent. What will the list of process-conformant vetted modules be called? Will we get to claim includion in the "Official Maintained DBI Module List" or what? -- David St. Hubbins: It's such a fine line between stupid, and uh... Nigel Tufnel: Clever.