Responses inline On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Richard Hainsworth <rnhainswo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've seen a couple of references to modules that no longer work; it's > inevitable with a new language. > > There is a balance between having respect for / protecting the original > developer, and also keeping a useful module up to date when the original > developer moves on / gets bored / dies / falls in love with someone else. > > Developers see a protocol for adding a module to the ecosystem. I think it > would be effective for the perl6 community to have a visible protocol for > dealing with 'abandoned' modules. If it's visible at the start, it is > difficult to complain about arbitrary decisions later.
Anyone should be able to release a module with the same name, it will just have a different :auth<> So anyone can fix it and upload it, if there isn't a licence problem. That leaves a few other problems. For one the old unmaintained module would still be there, and still be the newest version from that :auth<>. We would probably need a procedure to get it de-listed. Basically I think we are in a slightly unique situation, and we may just have to wait and see where the chips fall for some of it. > I came across the following, which I thought made the balance in a > reasonable way: > > https://learn.getgrav.org/advanced/grav-development#abandoned-resource-protocol > > Richard Hainsworth Some of that can be re-used, and it is very similar to the procedure for Perl 5 modules.
