Absentee maintainership

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Trevor Johnson wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
>> I'd like to hear your justification of why you think this is an
>> appropriate standard of maintainership and why you think you should be
>> allowed to continue to "maintain" ports in this way.
> The situation is very similar with the qt145 port.  I'd like to see you
> tend to your own responsibilities rather than what appears to be a
> campaign against me.

This is irrelevant.  Even if there were a problem with qt145, this is
no justification for keeping a tight lock, but neglecting other ports.

That said, it would be good could you could have a look at
  http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/49056
which has been stale for five/three months and has been marked broken
on -CURRENT for three months.

http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?responsible=trevor lists
a couple of PRs with patches related to this problem alone. :-(

Gerald