Ability for maintainers to update own ports

[Kris Kennaway]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:38:37PM +0300, Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
> Mark Linimon wrote:
> 
> >In the meantime, it really comes down to just getting more
> >volunteers involved within the existing framework, IMHO.
> 
> OK, where can we get they? :)
> 
> I think a new committer should get some obligations (say, to care about 
> an other's/orphaned ports).
> 
> May be there is a reason to designate a resposible person for each ports 
> category to move things faster?

Designating someone as responsible for a certain thing doesn't work in
a volunteer project, unless they agree to do it.  But if they want to
do it, there's nothing stopping *any* existing committer or
non-committer from deciding they care about e.g. the audio/ category
and working on fixing everything within it.

Indeed, there are a number of people who decided they care about
fixing the entire ports collection and started working on monitoring
or fixing the numerous problems with it.  Mark and Oliver are two such
examples, who were non-committers when they started doing this (and
eventually became committers as a result of doing a job that needed
doing).

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20031111/f5ba1cd5/attachment.bin