On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 02:53:41PM -0700, Jan Dubois wrote: > On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, David Golden wrote: > > Though to be fair, "author" is currently *required*, and I like the > > idea that there be a required point of contact. However, I don't like > > the idea of a mandatory "resources" field. > > > > How about if it gets renamed "auth" and the description is "author" or > > designated "authority" to respond to issues. > > > > Doesn't that accomplish what we need? > > I would prefer "maintainer" to make it absolutely clear that the contact > in that field does not claim authorship of the distribution.
Agreed. > But if it was just "maintainer" then there is no problem dropping > all previous authors who are no longer involved in the maintenance > (they still get their credit in the POD section on authorship and > copyright anyways). Agreed. Cheers, Barbie. -- Birmingham Perl Mongers <http://birmingham.pm.org> Memoirs Of A Roadie <http://barbie.missbarbell.co.uk> CPAN Testers Blog <http://blog.cpantesters.org> YAPC Conference Surveys <http://yapc-surveys.org>
