Hi
I would change the final sentance to: "Then put your own name in the Maintainer field, to indicate your ongoing support for the package." People will figure out that if they want to fork and abandon then they can blank the maintainer field, but by default a fork should come with support. We don't want to enourage one-shot packages with no support!
I'd prefer not to leave anything implicit. If we're going to permit unsupported forks, we ought to say what they should look like. (They are, after all, happening now.)
Do we want to permit unsupported forks? I am not convinced they are a good idea. As for the maintainer field, thinking about it further, it seems to make sense that no maintainer field is equal to a maintainer field of "" - hence using a blank string for unsupported seems like a bad idea. Therefore an explicit "unsupported" value probably makes more sense. Thanks Neil