Make upstream release monitoring (the service formerly known as FEVer) opt-out?

[Bill Nottingham]

Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: 
> Ralf, this entire service is informational only.  Maintainers don't need
> to do anything with this information, particularly if it isn't being
> filed as bugs and only provided on a webpage.  They can simply ignore
> the information or even pretend that the website doesn't exist.  The
> "opt-out" that Till is talking about is that by default, his service
> would manage every package it is capable of.  A maintainer would have to
> opt-out of having their package monitored.  But again, even if the
> package /is/ monitored, they don't have to do anything with that
> information.
> 
> There is no bureaucracy here, just potentially useful information a
> maintainer can choose to look at or not.

My concerns are twofold:

- BZ seems the wrong place. It's the only push mechanism we have other
  than raw e-mail, though.
- Not to generalize too much, but we have maintainers:

  - who maintain only a few packages
  Likely, these people are already plugged into their upstreams and don't
  need the extra notification.

  - who maintain a lot of packages (woo, 100 perl modules)
  These people are more likely to need it.

  Which of these groups do we want to optimize for by default?

Bill