CPS needs to do development fully in the open if it's going to replace pkg-config

CPS has reached the point of maturity that if it's going to displace systems like pkg-config, it needs to move to a community model of changes. Right now there are issues and PRs that have been opened for years with no comments, or that have a token comment, and the response is being ignored. Meanwhile changes are being pushed without review or feedback, some of which make the spec ambiguous. There is only one committer, who works on one build system.

What I would love to see for CPS to become the dependency configuration system of the future (having one thing we can all share and increase interoperability would be great):
- Require that all changes be submitted as PRs and not be merged without review (with some guidelines on how much review different kinds of changes require, as a appropriate)
- Add additional maintainers, specifically who work on other build systems and packaging systems (I would be happy to help, and I am a Meson maintainer)
- Approach additional build and packaging systems about CPS, and solicit real feedback and address that feedback. build2 and the GNU autotools come to mind as two build systems that I haven't seen anyone from make comments here.

The issue names no file, test, or entry point. Start by reviewing the existing CPS issues and pull requests, then identify the project’s current contribution and review practices. Done means establishing a community process for reviewed changes, adding maintainers, and soliciting feedback from other build and packaging systems.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.