Every now and then on the CPAN we get some variety of weird, unusual, destructive, or simply batshit insane insane authors.
Typically they upload one, or two, or 10, or maybe even 20 modules of dubious value, and then most of the time they burn out after 6 months or so and dissappear.
Every time this happens, discussion will circulate pondering why we don't crack down on people, or restrict uploads or something of that nature.
This talk by Clay Shirky provides what I think is the best and most elequent explaination I've seen yet of why CPAN continues to maintain such low barriers.
http://xrl.us/kkwmp
Of course, full credit for maintaining this policy for the CPAN goes to Andreas, who understood this long before the rest of us, and continues to hold firm in his position.
I think the 80/20 rule he explained was the most interesting bit. He says that 80% of all contributors give just a little tiny contribution, totalling to 20% of all contributions combined.
What he doesn't touch upon is the fact that these 80% also constitute 80% of the "recruitment base" of a project.
These 80% have recognized a project and invested enough time to give some kind of contribution - a bug report, a comment in an IRC channel, a documentation improvement, a recommendation or a patch. Their contribution may not have been big, but (as Clay Shirky hints) it may have been a important one. In any case, the contribution tells us about the commitment (potential or actual) from that person.
How can we make use of this potential? E.g. is there a clear, easily available and understandable path to follow for these 80%, so that it becomes more likely some of them "move up the graph" and contribute more?
I think this "escalating contributions path" could be better and more visible, if it at all exists.
Sure, props to Andreas, but there's still a long way to go, IMO.
I started reading your post and I was hoping your answer would be "it is better that way," and it was. Woo.
