From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Apr 23 17:22:43 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from dt051n0b.san.rr.com (dt051n0b.san.rr.com [204.210.32.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BCA37B9BE for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:22:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Received: from gorean.org (doug@master [10.0.0.2]) by dt051n0b.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11275; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:22:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Message-ID: <390393C3.71FDEAC@gorean.org> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:22:27 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT-0422 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuck Robey Cc: FreeBSD-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removing ports maintainers References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Chuck Robey wrote: > If this is being done because Kris can't get a response when he wants > changes, and he doesn't want to wait, I think that possibly he's doing > folks a disservice, because I think some mainatainer is probably better > than none at all, and for the majority of what he's doing, that's going to > be the ultimate effect. There are two benefits I can see for removing an inactive maintainer. One, it gives people who need information or would like to suggest improvements a channel that is more likely to be responsive than an inactive maintainer. The other is that it will encourage someone who takes an interest in a port to step forward and volunteer to maintain it. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message