Michael Gmelin wrote:
I already said this on the PR, but reiterating that as a desktop@ member I am opposed to this transfer without explicit consent by the current maintainer who is an active committer, regardless of timeout.On 20. Dec 2024, at 00:18, Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.li...@pyret.net> wrote: "...which is why assigning it to a group is likely a better idea for some ports such as this one."That depends on the group. I honestly don’t know who’s in desktop@ (I couldn’t figure it out googling for 60 seconds, so maybe there is a record somewhere and I’m too lazy).Having someone actually responsible sometimes works better than a group, unless that group provides sufficient transparency. I don’t see that sunpoet has failed us as the maintainer for this port and it doesn’t seem like you discussed it with them in a genuine way. So maybe that would be a first step, even if it means spending time and effort on that human interaction.
Besides that, as someone else already pointed out, desktop@ doesn’t seem like an obvious choice to me.There are a couple of ports that aren't obviously in desktop@'s purview but list the team as the maintainer because their first uses were to support desktop@ software builds and development.
-- Charlie Li ...nope, still don't have an exit line.
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
