Since i started this, even by stupidly replying to another thread, i might as well answer to that. My suggestion is not having comments in the AUR at all, comments arent useful to the users. They are only useful to the maintainer.
I would disagree... Sometimes it is good for maintaner-user feedback as well. E.g. one of my packages takes a long time to compile. It's a small package but one step looks as if it hung and stays there for about 10-15mins on my computer. I had one of the users place a comment that his compilation didn't work, it froze and he had to kill it after about 5 minutes. Told him to wait a bit longer and it worked. Sure it could be done in the BBS - but would be completely inefficient. Not many users for most of the packages so not many people know what's going on, and I'm not going to search through the forums every day to see if someone wrote about them... Now: comment placed, me notified, can act on it.... Or: someone makes a package. A TU or a more knowledgeable user points out some problems with it in comments so he can fix it. Other users see the comments and see the advice, one day when they will make packages they can take that advice that is now public, and not in someone's mailbox. Yeah, the Wiki is for such things, but how many little things are there that people don't Wiki up? Or how many time people still write on the mailing list while this and that does not work in a package when it should? Sure it "only" concerns the maintainer at that time but there are a much wider potential audience. Also, it can serve as a "call" for other users who are interested in that package (and probably set it to "notify") to call for someone else to adopt a package. And also, your assumption is 100% reliable dedicated knowledgeable maintainers. Which is obviously not the case...
If there is no maintainer, if a user feels the need to comment with an updated/altered script then he should adopt it and fix it. And even disown it afterwards if he feels like it.
Not everyone is the same. Not everyone wants to take that responsibility. Is forcing them the right way? I'd see more people giving up a package before adopting it. If they want to adopt they would do it under the current arrangement. Though the "email the list if one package is very outdated and the maintainer don't give a" is probably not that clear for everyone, might be better to advertise it a bit more, but that's a different issue.
How's that for "KISS" ?
I'd ask, if you have a website that supposed to be automated and self contained, how is it KISS to require people +1 registration to BBS, +1 registration to mailing list, +possibly much longer waiting to contact someone who can know the solution to the problem? Just thinking... Greg