`Every package must have exactly one maintainer'

[Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

I'm afraid I still want to beat this dead horse.

I think it is a mistake to think that this requirement is even
meaningful.   Remember that we are a project of volunteers; things get
done by the people who have time, inclination and (hopefully)
competence to do them.

Requiring that only one person is somehow `authorised' to do something
or `be responsible' for something when everyone might otherwise be
perfectly happy for many people to do it, and when we can't `hold
anyone responsible' for anything anyway, is unhelpful.

I can think of only two possible reason for saying that a package
might be required to have only one maintainer:

1. Decisionmaking in case of disagreement.  This is a red herring;
noone is suggesting that there be no way of making such decisions, and
if a group of co-maintainers can't agree on who should make the
decision we'll end up with one or the other or both versions of a
package anyway. 

2. Blame.  `It's your _fault_ there hasn't be a new release of program
Y since September.'  This is unhelpful - remember, we're a volunteer
project, and we will get nowhere by making participation un-fun for
people by guilt-tripping them and assigning blame, &c.  Instead, one
could just observe that Y needed an update and do it, causing less
emotional hassle, and without needing exactly one maintainer.

Ian.