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.
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. I then
still include the original author (without email address) to provide
some kind of attribution.
My sentiments would largely remain the same if the field was just
renamed to "auth(ority)", as I would still feel that the original author
should somehow be mentioned too.
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).
+1 to everything said by Jan.
Regards,
Slaven
