Re: AnyData2/DBD::AnyData2 co-maint

At 04:19 PM 4/24/2015, David Nicol wrote:
 >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?

I think: none of the above.  As long as nothing is published by David 
Golden, there's nothing to discuss.  We should not fall prey to 
fearmongering, wild guessing and walking ahead of the troops.  Many 
things were discussed, and the first thing that has to be done is 
make a summary that makes sense, make a proposal that makes even more 
sense, and await the reactions from you and many others.

This discussion is a discussion that should not happen now, because 
there is no use for you to discuss this on false premises, and 
without more knowlegde.  And I am not providing any more info.  Just 
be patient, and don't fear the worst, expect something balanced and 
very useful.

Kind regards,

Wendy van Dijk