Or just question why you're doing this to begin with.
The motivation to put up the mirror is that the creator of the original project has no interest in changing his project to work with the languages' package manager, but has endorsed others mirroring it. So I could mirror the original project on Github and add the files needed for the languages' package manager to work with it.
source: https://help.github.com/articles/about-github-mirrors/
so, basically, it either needs to be a repository you own or you would need to do cron job polling from some third machine.
In short, why should Ballard care that more might "engage and watch" if the project were on github than Savannah? Especially for a project he's no longer working on?
I'll copy&paste from https://caddy.community/t/the-realities-of-being-a-foss-main... on the assumption that you can fill in the details:
> Let’s talk about entitlement.
> It is an illusion. Anyone reading this who feels like you or your company have some right to demand anything from someone’s volunteer efforts in ANY open source project, even small libraries, STOP IT. You are not being a leader. You’re doing a disservice to yourself and the community by acting this way. ...
> The crowning motion of this illusion is to claim that dismissing such remarks is disingenuous since “the commentary is more valuable than original source of the discussion.” ...
> Emotional Manipulation
> This was the worst part of this experience, and is akin to abuse. Demands or demanding comments stem from the misconception that users are entitled to FOSS. While this manipulation also stems from a misconception, it’s a different one: that open source maintainers depend on, or need, their open source projects.
> For most maintainers or project owners, this is FALSE!
> You can’t dangle a maintainer’s open source project in front of them like a carrot and say, “You want this (to succeed), don’t you?” ...
> Here’s the brutal truth for 99.9% (* not an actual figure) of open source projects, folks: you (the user of an open source project) need and rely on the project more than the maintainers do. Do not make the mistake of thinking that maintainers are emotionally tied to their projects.
So thanks for copy-pasting all that but it completely besides the point. And frankly "monoculture", "proprietary" and "software freedom" are starting to become red flags. Not wanting monoculture is fine, forgetting that you don't have monopoly for truth or the right way to do things is not fine. As is not labeling someone just for expressing their wishes.
If my mother were to say "I would love it if you call me more", do you think it's simply a notice, with no other meaning behind it?
Because that's not the way I take it.
You still haven't answered the question of why Ballard would want to make it easier, given that 1) he's no longer working on it, 2) it's available under a free software license, 3) with a git repo, and 4) others have already put it on github.