I don't think that invalidates my request that more thought goes into a CPAN module than how many cool, new features can be incorporated that many folks can not use for one reason or another.

My code needs working Unicode because I have users who rely on working Unicode. That means at least Perl 5.14—which isn't even supported by p5p anymore.

There are shops out there that still use 5.6 for valid technical reasons....

That's fine, but those aren't my reasons and they don't affect me.

Others are on 5.8 for outside reasons, and will change as soon as a 3rd-party vendor makes changes.

That's fine, but that vendor's valid technical reasons are even further removed from my concerns. Also the word "vendor" makes me think that someone's getting paid. (I'm not; I'm giving away my code for you to use, modify, distribute, or ignore as you see fit.)

I've written, tested, documented, and debugged my code. I let you use it for free. I let you redistribute it freely. I let you modify it and redistribute modified versions. In return, all I ask is that do not remove my attribution from it. Is that so much to ask?

I can't use improvements I've made to Perl itself in the past several years because you have technical concerns that you assure me are valid? Even though they don't apply to me—even though I've given away everything but the credit for writing, testing, documenting, and debugging this code—that's not enough for you?

What next? If English isn't your first language, is it also my responsibility as a volunteer to translate all of the documentation, comments, and identifiers into everyone's preferred spoken language, because there are valid technical reasons why someone who isn't me (someone who's getting paid to work on this code) uses the local preferred tongue?

You don't have to be grateful. You don't have to use code I've written. You don't have to care. Even so, I think that telling a volunteer "Sorry, it isn't enough!" is a bit rude.

You don't have to be grateful. You don't have to use code I've written. You don't have to care. Even so, I think that telling a volunteer "Sorry, it isn't enough!" is a bit rude. - chromatic

I am sorry if that was the tone you received from my post and I apologize. That was not my intention. I have deep respect for all you have done.

When I said "vendors" I was thinking specifically of CentOS 5, which continues to ship with 5.8 (to the best of my knowledge.) I understand that the situation will be changing in the near future. Yes, I know that there are ways around that limitation, but they are not an option for everyone who might be stuck with that OS.

In any event, it seems that you and I are arguing at cross purposes when we both have strong feelings for Perl and wish to see it move forward in a way that not only advances the language and recruits new converts, but gives existing proponents the tools they need to eventually "catch up" as their situation permits.

It helps to remember that the primary goal is to drain the swamp even when you are hip-deep in alligators.

Yes, I know that there are ways around that limitation, but they are not an option for everyone who might be stuck with that OS.

I appreciate that position they find themselves in, but anyone who's chosen to tie a product to a vendor-supported release of Perl needs to go through that vendor for support, not volunteers. If you're sticking with a vendor such as CentOS or RH to ameliorate risk, then you ought to embrace their risk-management strategies rather than trying to work around them and taking on more risk.

(If you find their strategies onerous, you ought to reconsider whether that strategy really works for you, but even then, putting the burden of managing your own risk onto volunteers is not polite.)