While I do think the whole question of accountability for modules is an important one which was highlighted in the recent discussion of module authorship, I question whether your effort will really accomplish anything.

In the end, any form of certification just consists of a bunch of people who say that a module is worthwhile. You then must consider on what grounds you trust these people. Are they from the hypothetical CPANTS effort (which doesn't seem to have developed much recently)? Are they Perl Monks? Are there a whole bunch of them that use their numbers to suggest that bad ideas have limited acceptance? What is the compelling reason to trust this sanctifier as a second for the module author whose motives you question? The sanctifier becomes as tainted (in the -T sense) as the module author s/he's covering for, unless either the sanctifying process or the new person generates greater trust than the author alone (the process is a good regex, or else the person is? the example falls apart a little).

I suspect that for the paranoid, this exercise will offer little reassurance, and for those inclined to trust, the word of someone trustworthy (be it the Monk who recommends the module, the respected book author who promotes it, or a friend who uses it) will suffice. It was established in other threads that neccessity requires us to use technologies we don't fully comprehend.

I consider keeping track of the modules that work to be a bit akin to a bugtraq list of the exploits that were attempted and failed. Your idea of noting modules to be wary of, on the other hand, is far more interesting...

In reply to (kudra: useful?) Re: Sanctifying Modules by kudra
in thread Sanctifying Modules by extremely

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.