On Wednesday 11 September 2002 19:51, Michael Brade wrote:
> Just to sneak in a thought I had when reading the discussion of
> this unfortunate situation.
>
> On Tuesday 10 September 2002 19:45, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > this isn't the only option. there are several other options, most
> > of which include some variation of:
> >
> > [...]
> > o allowing branch to become HEAD eventually
>
> Yes, and this is exactly what Don wants, his aim he didn't talk
> about yet: _he_ is the current self-proclaimed maintainer of the
> branch and if it becomes HEAD he will claim maintainership of
> KMail, this time with more arguments than just "I am still the real
> one".
>
> Don't get me wrong, I would have nothing against Don as maintainer
> if it is in public agreement but I really don't like the way things
> are going right now (e.g. claiming maintainership instead of asking
> for it).

Well I'm really hurt by this.

If it's not possible to adopt a free software project, and this is 
what Michael has told me in private mail, then I really wonder what 
those people who took up maintainership of Elter's orphaned packages 
just did.

Don.

_______________________________________________
KMail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail