A risk of putting in a literal person is that you might stop maintaining the project, and changing the maintainer is now effectively a license change. It may be better to say "consensus among whoever is currently maintaining the project, as specified by the file MAINTAINERS".

▲

duskdozer 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think it's not the best, considering the chardet debacle. It would make sense though to have clauses indicating what happens or who gains the proxy role in the event the original author is gone.

▲

shiomiru 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn't that effectively the same as or-later? I can always fork your project, change the MAINTAINERS file, and relicense without your consent.

	▲	happymellon 12 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Indeed, it would need to be more specific, and say this list of people in this repo.
	▲	danlitt 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Uh yes of course, I thought of that and thought "isn't that neat" but of course it goes against exactly what the author wants. I don't find this fear very natural I suppose! A different trusted third party could be nominated, I guess (KDE project nominate KDE e.V. for instance).