The future of fortune(6)

[Warner Losh]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:16 PM, A. Wilcox <AWilcox at wilcox-tech.com> wrote:

> On 22/11/17 14:44, Warner Losh wrote:
> >     If there is no political agenda, then moving the entire thing to a
> port
> >     would have been the right thing to do – including the datfiles.
> >
> >
> > No. That would also give the project's endorsement to it. Gone is 'no
> > opinion at all' we have.
>
>
> And *since* you have decided that "having a port" implies endorsement of
> a project, before I archive this thread, here are a few more ports that
> you should probably poke portmaster about:
>

We've removed ports before because we don't believe they reflect well on
the project. However, the examples you cite are lame. None of them that I
could tell rise to the same level as what we're talking about. In no case,
except maybe the fortune ones, does the project curate a number of
disparate views that omits other views. Resorting to this extreme level of
"what about"ism isn't helpful in having a rational discussion.

Warner