It'd be even better if CPAN even allowed a "default trust" model that has been so successful on the internet. I'd flag all of my modules as "default trust" so anybody who felt like I wasn't doing a good enough job of maintaining my module could upload a new version.

Add to that various time-outs so if I never respond to new uploads then those who do the work of uploading can get ownership power over the module name(s).

Heck, let me set the time-outs. How long before a non-author upload becomes official and gets indexed. How long after I upload a new version of a module (or even "refresh" a module as "still up-to-date") before non-author uploads can become official and get fully indexed. How long before a new uploader is automatically declared an authorized maintainer (and thus can set their own time-outs or approve others' uploads).

If I don't configure a specific time-out for a module, then that time-out wouldn't apply to it (CPAN would behave as it does now -- valuing ownership far above contribution and discouraging collaboration).

Though, I'd prefer to require a new version be uploaded and not allow an empty declaration of "still up-to-date". But I suspect allowing the latter would be more successful, at least at first.

I thought anyone can upload a new version. It just gets marked as "UNAUTHORIZED" in red on search.cpan.org

Besides, there is an existing process for taking over an abandoned module. This is a separate issue from the one brought up by the OP.

Well yes, technically its different, but its all the same ball of wax -- the current situation requires far too much direct human intervention

It'd be even better if CPAN even allowed a "default trust" model ...

I suspect that that would require long and wide-ranging discussions amongst CPAN authors; would probably require the implementation and validation of various checks and balances; and could conceivably have knock-on affects upon corporate views and policies with regard to CPAN. Five years from now you might finally reach a majority consensus, and all that would be left to do is argue about who is going to implement it; and who is going to fund that implementation.

On the other hand, the timeouts could probably be implemented by one person over a weekend and -- as it only requires authors to log in once every six months; or respond to an email once every six months -- should be sufficiently uncontroversial that it wouldn't raise objections.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

The time-outs are the way to allow the "default trust" model. So I'm not sure what you were imagining in the nightmare scenario.

- tye