Update Policy for Encouraging comaintainers of packages
    
    Said policy is very old,
    it was languishing in wiki for a very long time,
    until it was imported to FESCo Docs as part of Package Maintainer Docs
    wiki import.
    The content was not verified at that time.
    It turns out that the content was seriouly out of date,
    with large parts of the policy not being applicable at all today.
    This is a comprehensive rewrite of the policy.
    There is no intent of making any changes,
    yet much needs to be rewritten to make it applicable in current
    environment.
    
    * Adopt more formal style
    
    * Remove references to a system where different release branches have
    different maintainers.
    Such system is not in use today.
    
    * Remove suggestions that maintainers (or a hypothetical script) should
    periodically post to mailing lists,
    asking for more co-maintainers.
    This does not happen in practice and such script still does not exist.
    
    * Remove discussion regarding how maintainers should coordinate through
    cvs usage.
    This is not applicable at all, since cvs is not in use.
    Suggesting something like this could make sense,
    but it would be a completely different system that leverages Pagure
    pull requests.
    
    * Remove the requirement of specifying package's maintenance rules in a
    file called 'rules'.
    Not a single package does that, so the rule is a dead letter.
    
    * Replace the general reference to "FESCo mediation" with a specific
    reference to the Non-responsive Maintainer Policy
    for the case where co-maintainers consider the primary maintainer
    unsuitable for the position.
    
    * Remove an unclear mention how co-maintenance can remove the packager
    sponsorship process "in the future".
    It has not happened, the the Package Sponsor Policy now explicitly takes
    co-maintenance into account.
    
    * Remove the rule that SIGs cannot be co-maintainers,
    because in reality, they are currently allowed as co-maintainers.
    Instead, say that SIGs cannot be primary maintainers.
    
    * Remove the mention that upstream developers are better avoided as
    primary maintainers.
    This does not seem to be Fedora's position anymore.
    
    * Reduce the encouraged amount of packagers per package to two.
    In practice, few packages in Fedora reached the old recommendation of
    at least three.