From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org  Sat Jul 11 15:56:49 2020
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@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 F080E36743E;
 Sat, 11 Jul 2020 15:56:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@freebsd.org)
Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B3vfn4cC7z46p2;
 Sat, 11 Jul 2020 15:56:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@freebsd.org)
Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.92.3 (FreeBSD))
 (envelope-from <pi@freebsd.org>)
 id 1juHri-000NhV-8R; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 17:56:38 +0200
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 17:56:38 +0200
From: Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org,
 freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bugzilla messages about issues related to freebsd-ports,
 freebsd-multimedia, ...
Message-ID: <20200711155638.GM39563@home.opsec.eu>
References: <20200711112755.GA3908@c720-r342378>
 <20200711113510.GQ1462@albert.catwhisker.org>
 <20200711134110.GA4973@c720-r342378>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200711134110.GA4973@c720-r342378>
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4B3vfn4cC7z46p2
X-Spamd-Bar: /
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org;
	none
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00];
 local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org];
 ASN(0.00)[asn:12502, ipnet:2001:14f8::/32, country:DE]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 15:56:50 -0000

Hi!

> why as MAINTAINER a full discussion(!) mailing list is used?

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.

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.

It's a problem of assigning some feel of 'ownership and responsibility'
on the one hand and delegation on the other.

I take it from your question that you feel this is not a good
solution...

-- 
pi@opsec.eu            +49 171 3101372                    Now what ?