Borrowing from software engineering, you can publish code to a git repository and someone else can make a pull/merge request with a proposal to make fixes/improvements. There's still work involved in reviewing, revising, and merging those proposals, but it can be less work than needing to make every change yourself.

I wonder if academic papers could benefit from a similar process of communal development (though it flies in the face of the dead-tree format of academic papers, but we're talking about Arxiv here, not Elsevier). Even if suggestions don't get merged, having a repository that captures discussion around the central artifact is also useful (such as when a maintainer decides that a feature doesn't belong in a project).