{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreictaixjwasesqjxk2j22ootto6rinqnuscuuoyrixvy7kframfpeq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ivbknywyskln22er3nkssdhl/app.bsky.feed.post/3mfk57cvmdls2"
  },
  "path": "/t/survey-of-organizational-ownership-and-registry-namespace-designs-for-cargo-and-crates-io/24027#post_4",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-23T15:10:14.000Z",
  "site": "https://internals.rust-lang.org",
  "tags": [
    "Child Thread: Survey of organizational ownership designs for Cargo and Crates.io",
    "@epage",
    "crates.io"
  ],
  "textContent": "Cross-posting as this ties into the use cases:\n\nChild Thread: Survey of organizational ownership designs for Cargo and Crates.io\n\n> Well, so. I probably hit a lot of cases in this, so @epage happy to be interviewed in the implementation.\n>\n> Independent of namespacing implementation, we have:\n>\n>   * A company name (company names are trademark like) that has a community-wide nickname (ferrous-systems, ferrous)\n>   * A trademark for a bigger product that we want to keep \"closed\" (ferrocene), we do not want someone to publish under that name.\n>   * We maintain some projects that we are responsible for, but where the name is \"open\" (e.g. \"defmt\", where a third party example publishing \"defmt-my_funny_testsuite\" is totally encouraged). Any negative stuff happening on that front would probably violate crates.io policy and does not need any special care.\n>\n\n>\n> So, as an org, we at least have a 1-N relationship to namespaces.",
  "title": "Survey of organizational ownership and registry namespace designs for Cargo and Crates.io"
}