Agreed. On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:51 AM Tom Ellis < tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2017@jaguarpaw.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:36:16PM +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021, amindfv--- via Haskell-Cafe wrote:
Again, trying to be respectful here, but "burning" kinda does imply "fire," and "need" certainly does imply "need." It's now seeming more just like a desire for the package name.
I have nothing to do with 'toml' but the many takeover requests in the recent past make me nervous that if I am away from Haskell programming for some weeks or months brings me in danger of losing my packages. Btw. for some years I was not subscribed to Haskell Cafe because of high traffic and I would have missed such takeover request. I think the preference should be to create a fork.
This raises an interesting question: to whom does the entry in the package namespace belong? There's a tacit assumption that it belongs to the first person who registered it. Arguably though it could be deemed to belong to the community. The more "generic" the name the more water that argument seems to hold.
The solution of "create a fork" could equally well be turned around to apply to a package maintainer who returns after a long absence to find that the community has taken over maintenance of her package. I don't think there's any absolute sense in which that is the wrong answer.
We won't find a general principle that holds in all cases but I do think it is worth discussing and perhaps coming up with some voluntary principles that maintainers can sign up to. Looking to how other language ecosystems handle this issue may be helpful.
Tom _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.