While potentially simplistic in its ideal, I can't help but think this could and should be a democratic process; folk nominate examples like GMPASSOS's old work, there's a rebuttal period, and then others vote on it in search of critical thought and mass. Poof.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Brian Cassidy <brian.cass...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hey y'all, > > I had sent a private message to bdfoy about this, but he suggested I > present it to the list to be discussed. > > On the aforementioned blog post, Ether mentions an interesting case where > old releases by other authors are obviously not cleaned up. Specifically, > I'm interested in the case where I've taken over the maintenance of a > module from someone who is now inactive. > > I've done several releases of Statistics::R and Geo::IPfree over the last > few years. The versions found in GMPASSOS's directory are clearly obsolete. > Although they're not doing any harm, should they be cleaned? GMPASSOS won't > be doing it -- is this stepping over acceptable boundaries for a PAUSE > admin to clean them? > > FWIW, I'm fine with leaving them be, but I thought the question should be > asked. > -Brian > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Gabor Szabo <ga...@szabgab.com> wrote: > >> In case you are not reading blogs.perl.org, >> brian d foy just sent out the regular spring cleaning call: >> >> >> http://blogs.perl.org/users/brian_d_foy/2014/04/lets-delete-10000-files-from-cpan.html >> >> Gabor > > -- ~jet
