{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreia4ocm5zijokia6oeduabshnamyrl2x3kitzs5gwsqtgprzz7r45m",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mgf43qlncuh2"
  },
  "path": "/t/fork-basement-as-baseplate/12415?page=4#post_74",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-06T07:53:31.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "textContent": "Absolutely fair point. Actually, my proposal would be much better if we:\n\n  * keep the same technical solution\n  * still let maintainers apply for a global name\n  * let the CLC (or a separate, similar body) decide if/when it is necessary to reassign a global name\n  * adopt the current CLC policy for these decisions\n\n\n\nhasufell:\n\n> You could do it another way and say global/public names are just symlinks maintained by a committee or something.\n\nYes, that’s pretty much my proposal.\n\nhasufell:\n\n> Why would I trust someone else to know better than me who is a good maintainer for the package/library I wrote?\n\nThe 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.\n\nThe 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.\n\nOf 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.",
  "title": "Fork `basement`? As `baseplate`?"
}