On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:00:15AM +0200, Tobias Nygren wrote:
[..]

> Now that there seems to be a consensus that it is a good idea
> to formalise this, and that exclusive maintainership can be bad
> for many noncritical/leaf packages because it results in
> unnecessary e-mail overhead and delays, how about this scheme:

That maybe unnecessary e-mail in some eyes, but i others it may not
because there maybe a reason why the maintainer didn't update the
package.

[..]

> The absence of the comment above MAINTAINER would mean that updating
> without asking is allowed. Anyone can step up and steal weak
> maintainership of an abandoned package. If people care strongly about
> what's going on with their packages they should either
> 
> 1) read pkgsrc-changes@
> or
> 2) Add a comment field to their packages
> 
> This scheme is good because:
> 
>  o most packages can be left untouched
>  o the comment field is flexible
>  o promotes collaboration
>  o many packages currently have MAINTAINERs who are not NetBSD
>    developers. They would formally be recognised as weak maintainers.

I'm against this way, it should be the other way around for the 'comment'.
A maintainer has to explicit add a comment that they want become a 'weak'
maintainer.
A maintainer is a maintainer, if not then we don't need this field at all.

Bernd