From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Apr 23 19:31:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from jade.chc-chimes.com (jade.chc-chimes.com [216.28.46.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9162137B735 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 19:31:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from billf@jade.chc-chimes.com) Received: by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 8C5C21C4D; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:31:33 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola To: Chuck Robey Cc: FreeBSD-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removing ports maintainers Message-ID: <20000423223133.O397@jade.chc-chimes.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from chuckr@picnic.mat.net on Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 07:55:59PM -0400 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 07:55:59PM -0400, 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. The exact opposite is true: a deadweight maintainer stalls progress and PRs that "wait for MAINTAINER feedback" that never arrives. Maintainership is not a passive state. -- Bill Fumerola - Network Architect Computer Horizons Corp - CVM e-mail: billf@chc-chimes.com / billf@FreeBSD.org Office: 800-252-2421 x128 / Cell: 248-761-7272 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message