From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Dec 17 00:35:41 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6FA816A4CE
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:35:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.ciam.ru (main.ciam.ru [213.147.57.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9D243D31
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:35:40 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from sem@ciam.ru)
Received: from sem.ciam.ru ([192.168.45.10] helo=ciam.ru)
	by mail.ciam.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.x)
	id 1AWX9b-0008CJ-BI; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:35:35 +0300
Message-ID: <3FE01558.40100@ciam.ru>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:35:36 +0300
From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031028
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: noackjr@alumni.rice.edu
References: <3FDFD55D.8050509@alumni.rice.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3FDFD55D.8050509@alumni.rice.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: www/squid maintainer: 3 months and still timing out...
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:35:42 -0000

Jon Noack wrote:
> Squid is a mission-critical 
> app for my employer and I'm the one responsible for keeping it running. 

The same for me and many other people. May be writing some rules for 
such ports make a sense? And if the maintainer brakes this rules 
persistantly then to take off a maintainership and give it to another 
person.
May be it's sounds too strict but a mainteinership is a responsibility 
first.

Just a moan: if you post a PR and got no answer from a non-committer 
port maintainer you could wait for a month and ask for 
maintainer-timeout-commit. But if a port maintainer is a committer, your 
PR freeze for enternity - nobody takes that PRs.

-- 
Sem.