Re: Creating the devel/wnpp reports
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 07:31:22AM -0700, doug jensen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 06:58:01AM -0600, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> > [1] It was meant to request for Co-Maintainers, but RFC is not appropriate,
> > IMHO. RFH might be misleading too (the help tag on BTS). Perheps RFU
> > (Uploaders) can be used, but I'm not sure.
>
> Maybe, RFM - Request For Maintainers.
If the scripts can handle it, I think we should go out to four letters -
RFCM, Request For Co-Maintainer. RFM sounds like an RFA or RFP.
- Matt
Reply to: