Fork `basement`? As `baseplate`?

Absolutely fair point. Actually, my proposal would be much better if we: * keep the same technical solution * still let maintainers apply for a global name * let the CLC (or a separate, similar body) decide if/when it is necessary to reassign a global name * adopt the current CLC policy for these decisions hasufell: > You could do it another way and say global/public names are just symlinks maintained by a committee or something. Yes, that’s pretty much my proposal. hasufell: > Why would I trust someone else to know better than me who is a good maintainer for the package/library I wrote? The implicit perspective here is, I believe, that of a responsible maintainer. Those are not the reason for such measures, and also shouldn’t ever have their packages reassigned. The reason for such a policy are maintainers who lose interest, or otherwise become a liability from the perspective of the Haskell ecosystem. So a responsible maintainer should have negligible disadvantages from applying for a global name. The advantage for a global name is higher visibility: especially newcomers to Haskell and experienced devs new to a particular part of the ecosystem can be recommended to pick a library with a global name. Of course, noone needs to apply for a global name. But I believe many would. It could be a requirement for core libraries. I would definitely apply.