On 11/1/23 at 9:02 PM, Eric Gallager wrote: > I think if we add a separate "interested party" role, it would > probably be good to change the abandonment procedure so that instead > of removing unresponsive maintainers entirely, they'd just get moved > to the "interested party" role instead. Sometimes reporting bugs > against nomaintainer ports can be pretty frustrating since no one > notices them since there's no one to cc, but with a separate > "interested party" field there could still be someone to cc. I guess > another way of thinking of it is separate maintainers for issues vs. > PRs? That is, "this person can help solve bugs with this port" vs. > "this person can make changes to this port" or something.
I have been interested in something similar. There are ports for which I would like to be notified of changes or issues, but I am not interested in being responsible for maintaining. https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2023-March/044956.html
