Rational behind the suggestion

[anantshri]

I am a single person and for my small project, i enabled scorecard.

the first recommendation i get is

"If the project has only one contributor, or does not have enough reviewers to practically require that all contributions be reviewed, try to recruit more maintainers to the project who will be willing to review others' work. Ideally at least some of these people will be from different organizations (see Contributors). If the project has very limited utility, consider expanding its intended utility so more people will be interested in improving it, and make that larger scope clear to potential contributors."

I would like to understand why there is no suggestion about how to disable this if its a single person project and why specifically we are encouraging people to expand project utility. The message goes counter to the whole philosophy.

Funny enough someone might point that for bigger adoption and especially corporate adoption this is a required feature. however i have specifically marked project as a GPL 3 project so corps dont touch it. but i guess that is not part of the consideration anywhere.

It just feels absurd that if you are a single contributor, increase contributors but if no contributor interested increase scope of project take more on your head and then increase contributor but nowhere it talks about how to accept this as a noted concern and move on, where as accepting risk is the one thing corporates always prefer keeping in system.