Thanks, Sunpoet.

In D17260#368554, @sunpoet wrote:

It's from D13490. I guess @mat means "it no more".

This looks like a good idea to me.

Looks good here, but can you add "gnupg" somewhere in the initial sentence? When many packages have messages that are all output together at the end of a pkg run, it can sometimes be hard to tell what message applies to what package. Maybe "gnupg may experience random connection failures"?

This is an insanely good idea.

In D13481#349997, @yuri wrote:

About 10-15 more ports can be added to it.

The full, comprehensive list of ports for each category needs to be included here. From experience, we can't create a category and hope that others put stuff in there---it never happens, and then we have stale categories. In order for this to proceed, Yuri, you'd have to do the legwork on identifying the comprehensive list here. Is this list of 36 ports the full list?

That is definitely much clearer. Thanks!

It's a slang usage, but it's common enough that everybody treats it as a respectful gender-neutral term.

"Their" in a singular context is pretty awkward grammar. "His or her" is the correct phrase, but you could avoid it entirely with "all ports maintained by that [person/address/individual]" or "all of that maintainer's ports."

In D15776#333672, @mat wrote:

Well, it was the idea, if someone is gone and not interested any more, no point in keeping them as dead maintainers.

Anyone can submit a PR with a patch changing the maintainer of a port, and that patch can be committed after a single timeout.

True, but the new text removes resetting maintainership on a single port entirely. Now, if ANY port times out, it calls for ALL ports to be reset.

That's a very good point. Perhaps "made no contributions (commits, submissions, or PR comments)" instead.

We need to clarify whether "three consecutive timeouts" refers to "three consecutive timeouts of one port" or "three consecutive timeouts in any port owned by this maintainer."

I definitely like this. Thanks, @mat!