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
