From owner-freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Sun Jul 12 10:53:03 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-multimedia@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E87235FA2A for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 10:53:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from guru@unixarea.de) Received: from ms-10.1blu.de (ms-10.1blu.de [178.254.4.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B4Nsp6cvKz4Pqd for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 10:53:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from guru@unixarea.de) Received: from [77.4.16.36] (helo=[192.168.179.68]) by ms-10.1blu.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1juZbQ-0008M0-7t for freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 12:53:00 +0200 From: Matthias Apitz To: Subject: Re: bugzilla messages about issues related to freebsd-ports, =?iso-8859-1?Q?freebsd-multimedia, _...?= Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 12:53:00 +0200 User-Agent: Dekko/0.6.20; Qt/5.4.1; ubuntumirclient; Linux; MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <5c74bce0-9772-4b62-ba62-d7712aa42572@unixarea.de> In-Reply-To: <20200711155638.GM39563@home.opsec.eu> References: <20200711112755.GA3908@c720-r342378> <20200711113510.GQ1462@albert.catwhisker.org> <20200711134110.GA4973@c720-r342378> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Con-Id: 51246 X-Con-U: 0-guru X-Originating-IP: 77.4.16.36 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4B4Nsp6cvKz4Pqd X-Spamd-Bar: ++++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of guru@unixarea.de has no SPF policy when checking 178.254.4.101) smtp.mailfrom=guru@unixarea.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [4.44 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_VERYGOOD(0.00)[178.254.4.101:from]; HAS_XOIP(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.98)[0.979]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[unixarea.de]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.61)[0.610]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.85)[0.854]; SUBJ_EXCESS_QP(1.20)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:42730, ipnet:178.254.4.0/24, country:DE]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[178.254.4.101:from] X-BeenThere: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Multimedia discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 10:53:03 -0000 On Saturday, 11 July 2020 17:56:38 CEST, Kurt Jaeger =20 wrote: > Hi! >=20 >> why as MAINTAINER a full discussion(!) mailing list is used? >=20 > Having individuals as maintainers can cause delays in > approving patches and providing updates. So at some time in the > past, some groups of port maintainers choose to band together > and have a mailing list -- and changed the MAINTAINER to > the list, so that each member of the list could update the port, > if it was needed. >=20 > This can cause other delays, because no-one might feel responsible > for a port, so recently, bugmeister@ choose to add (Nobody) to > some of the group maintainers, so that others do not wait > for group approval. >=20 > It's a problem of assigning some feel of 'ownership and responsibility' > on the one hand and delegation on the other. >=20 > I take it from your question that you feel this is not a good > solution... >=20 Yes. In this case, it would be better to create additional mailing-lists=20 for this collective approach like, example, freebsd-multimedia-maintainer@ =20= ... Don't you agree? matthias --=20 Sent from my Ubuntu phone http://www.unixarea.de/ NO to the EU! NEIN zur EU!