Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> 
> Tarek Ziadé <ziade.tarek@gmail.com> added the comment:
> 
>> I'm just suggesting to add the meta-data field in order to recreate
>> consistency - not advocating that setup() parameter or its use.
> 
> Yes but fixing this inconsitency can be done on either side:
> A - remove the maintainer and maintainer_email 
> B - add the Maintainer and Maintainer-email in the metadata
> 
> While I understand your PoV about the fact that B/ is not impacting
> existing packages and doesn't require any deprecation, I would like to
> find some use cases for having such fields in the Metadata, other than
> fixing the inconsistency.
> 
> If we don't have a use case, I'd go for A/

Having a maintainer for a package is not at all uncommon.

Whether you put that maintainer into a separate field or not
is really a mix of respect/taste/culture.

I'd go for B, since we already have the maintainer setup()
variable and just need to add the missing meta-data field.

Whether this gets used or not is up to 3rd party code
using the meta-data to decide and not really a distutils
question.