results of ports re-engineering survey

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith]

Ade Lovett wrote:
> 
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 02:32 , David Southwell wrote:
>> I suspect antagonistic responsesfrom some people are more about 
>> wounded pride
>> (i.e - astonishment why should anyone propose to improve on the 
>> procedures,
>> systems and engineering to which they contributed in the past!)
> 
> You suspect wrong.  Sorry.  Indeed, I already said as much about the 
> current system, and it's scalability.
> 
>> Sp please either make contributions that are intended to help the current
>> process rather than boring everyone with negativity
> 
> Since this is a WIP, how about taking it to a specific mailing list that 
> is not related to how things currently operate.   I read ports@ for one 
> reason, and one reason only, to keep abreast of potential issues with 
> the *current* system.
> 
> It's not hard to set up a mailing list.  Hell, I'll even host it myself 
> if that's what it takes, but as things stand, ports@ (or, indeed, any 
> other exising mailing list) is not the right place to be discussing 
> concepts that are, fluid.

Why cannot ports@ be a broad commons?  It is not as if David and Aryeh 
are posting oodles of spam!  Definitely their postings are totally 
pertinent to "Porting software to FreeBSD" 
(http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo).

And what is all this talk of them polluting the list?  Far more noise 
has been generated complaining about them.

I understand that you might have a private definition of ports@ that it 
should only discuss the current system.  But if this is all you come to 
this group for, just press the delete key when it is not something you 
are personally interested in.

Now if someone starts talking about their vacation plans, or even 
FreeBSD kernel issues, then by all means complain about list pollution - 
I'll join with you!

Stephen