Bug 25789

 > Hmm, the only thing I see with this (the patch looks ok) is that the
 > rules in the CG were actually a list of rules that were drafted by
 > -core and voted on by the committers about a year or so ago.  I'm not
 > sure one can just add new rules out of the blue, but then again there
 > is no provision for what to do with proposed changes to the rules.
 > Nik?
 
 I asked Dan to prepare this, because I saw a need for it but hadn't gotten
 around to writing it up, and he had written an e-mail
 (200103132133.f2DLXWs06667@ns1.unixathome.org in the "Core's function
 (was: The Project and onward [was: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet
 ip_output.c])" thread on cvs-all/cvs-committers) about a bad experience
 he'd had.
 
 I had noticed an instance where two people submitted PRs requesting a
 change to the ports collection.  The first PR was closed with a note that
 the ported program was already available (a port of it together with
 another program existed) and that the second PR existed, as though that
 took precedence.  When the second PR was sixteen months old, a committer
 closed it with a note that he had just done a port of the same program
 himself.  He didn't offer maintainership of the port to either of the
 people who sent in the PRs, nor did he mention either of them in the
 commit log for the new port.
 
 Perhaps this could be added under "Other Suggestions" with a note that it
 was originally requested as a rule.
 -- 
 Trevor Johnson
 http://jpj.net/~trevor/gpgkey.txt