Recent ports removal

[Mikhail T.]

On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Doug Barton wrote:
> Yes, we realize that you, and a small minority of other interested
> parties, have this belief in spite of endless repetition of the
> reasoning, by the people who do the actual work to keep the ports tree
> functional, as to why your desire to keep every port is not a workable
> solution.

I'm one of this "small minority" and can't recall hearing the actual 
"reasoning" repeated even once -- without every argument being soundly 
rebutted by myself and other "interested parties".

The last discussion, that I can recall ended with an assurance, that the 
matter is being discussed by the portmgr@ and that the discussion's 
results will soon be delivered to the unwashed masses.

If, indeed, the sound arguments exist, then, perhaps, they can be 
summarized on a web-page of some sort -- together with the attempts at 
rebuttal and the counter-rebuttals? There is clearly a vocal share of 
contributors that currently disagree with portmgr's line -- and our 
claim to represent a sizable portion of users is just as good as your 
claim, that we are nothing but a "small minority".

Please, convince us so we can all go along with the consensus -- and 
relieve you from having to repeat your reasoning (whatever it is) 
monthly... Thanks!

> However the fact that no one has made a peep about them is a pretty strong indication that they were simply dead
> weight that we were carrying for no good reason.

You've gone from "small minority of other interested parties" to "no one 
has made a peep" in a single e-mail! If this is the quality of the rest 
of your reasoning, than you should not be surprised, that it has not 
really resonated despite the "endless repetition"...

    -mi