One point about contact points comes to mind: do we currently allow/mention/encourage *multiple* contact addresses (be they email addresses or something else)
People change jobs / email providers / graduate, and to better be able to contact them, multiple addresses is better than a single one. On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:22 PM, David Golden <xda...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Lars Dɪᴇᴄᴋᴏᴡ > <lars.diec...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Since we have no consensus on a change of semantic, field extension, > field > > renaming or deprecation in favour of something better, I came up with a > doc > > patch (attached because Github is down) that merely describes the current > > practice in the wild. Some quotations from you that pull into this > direction: > > > > • "who to spam for problems with this module" > > • who to contact with questions or bugs (in the event that there is no > > bugtracker) > > • Author is probably best as "contact point." > > • I always feel uneasy to put my name/email address into "author" when > all I'm > > doing is keeping the module in working condition on CPAN. > > > > If you read the patch's prose carefully, it sounds kind of vague as I > wanted > > to avoid MUSTs and SHOULDs. Any comments welcome. > > Works for me. It clarifies the current state, which is consistent > with the criteria for changes. > > After all patches are integrated, I'll probably do a couple editing > passes. There are other sections using "must" and "should" and such, > so I'd like to harmonize. For the moment, this works great. > > -- David > -- There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
