On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Wendy G.A. van Dijk <nl...@wendy.org> 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.
