I think that, for one port that I'm maintainer or, there are probably 10+ ports I originated/did major changes on.
One thing Solene is right about: what does port maintainership means ? It means there's one person who cares deeply enough about the port that he's going to keep it (more or less) up-to-date and will be the go-to person for changes to that port. As it stands, I don't think "multi-maintainer" ports are a solution. I also don't think keeping everything squeaky up-to-date is the solution either. And finally (surprise!) I don't think that removing ports without recent activity is the solution either. The way Unix works, we got 5000+ ports that don't need much activity nor maintainership. Some of them might be somewhat out-of-date but this doesn't have huge implications, security-wise. The remaining 5000 split among stuff that's trivial to maintain (meaning: it's in good enough shape/portable enough that an update can be done by anyone) and stuff that's trickier. I think the main goal we should have is to get more people on-board. Face it: we are lagging behind badly when it comes to gettin more ports aboard. Yeah, there's the question of quality and all that. Let me wonder a bit. We've got all kinds of tools to catch bad mistakes these days. What's wrong with opening the Ivory Tower a wee little bit more and getting more ports people ? Newcomers may make mistakes. We got more tools to catch those mistakes. And we need tooling for that. More people to work with -> more time to work on stuff that needs working on.
