Adding the requirement that outsiders may take over authorship and copyright of a module isn't a good thing in my opinion.
I'm at a loss to see where anyone suggested that this could/would or should happen?
mifune wrote: I feel that thought could be given to a natural and agile way (built into the structure of CPAN) of branching or evolving a given module, a way that automatically took care of authorship, copyright and and other important formalities.
If authorship and copyright are to be stayed at the original author, what are the "formalities" regarding authorship and copyright then?
A somewhat formalised mechanism for forking the development would ensure not only that the collaborating users could find each other and achieve their needs
There's no reason why this mechanism should start with changing CPAN. I'd say, hammer out the details of your mechanism. Start acting on it. Find the quircks. Work them out. Then, after you have a working mechanism, first contact the modules mailing list with your suggestion, then try to get PAUSE changed to handle your (by now proven) mechanism, and then you can see whether you can build this into CPAN.
it would also ensure continuity of both authorship and licencing of the original elements of the module.
No change to CPAN is required to do. Copyright and licensing laws already force this to be the default.
Not only does this help ensure that you don't half a dozen unilateral forks by disparate individuals;
Actually, it won't help your ensure that you don't get half a dozen forks. At best, it will prevent some
forks, but there will still be people ignoring whatever framework you create, and creating their own forks. This is an open source world we live it.