From owner-freebsd-ports Mon May 1 14:12: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF2E37C707; Mon, 1 May 2000 14:06:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA11736; Mon, 1 May 2000 14:06:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 14:06:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Oliver Breuninger Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: No response In-Reply-To: <390DA7FD.E1882A4F@seicom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 1 May 2000, Oliver Breuninger wrote: > who is responsible if port changes where send, but > after months nothing happens ? If you send-pr them and the maintainer ignores them, talk to another committer about getting them committed (e.g. here is fine). IMO, maintainers should be courteous enough to say "sorry, I've been busy the past few months, I hope to look at these soon" instead of just ignoring the submission. If it becomes obvious they're not actually doing anything, just sitting on the port and not touching it, then I think it's fine for another committer to take responsibility for the changes and do the commit themselves. Just mention (e.g. in the send-pr audit trail) that you've tried for X months to get a response out of the maintainer but to no avail. Maintainership is supposed to be an active process, not an implementation of /dev/null. Kris ---- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message