Fork `basement`? As `baseplate`?

philh: > I think that we fundamentally have to choose one of two options: No, I don’t think we do. Core libraries is a third option. To become a core library… * the current maintainer has to explicitly apply or agree * the CLC itself has to agree as well So this is all opt-in and has nothing to do with hackage. No one is being overridden here. If basement was a core library, then it would still have a maintainer today. But it isn’t. That just means all those packages depending on basement, sadly, made a poor decision to rely on this ecosystem, because there was no sustainability guarantee around it. I’m sorry, but that’s your responsibility as a package author to also look at the maintainers of your dependencies and their policies. I do that and I drop packages that I find unsustainable. To me personally it was very clear long time ago that the entire Vincent ecosystem is not sustainable and it was on my personal blacklist of things to not use (for more than one reason). Please, let it rest in peace and let people salvage what remains useful of it. I don’t think we need to take this exceptionally eccentric example of maintenance push us towards making sketchy hackage policies. There have been similar attempts other than core libraries to make sustainability guarantees around packages. I would like to suggest that this is a better course of action. I could very well also imagine a project that goes through hackage packages and makes an opinionated list that features a sustainability score. Lots of ways to tackle this problem. But tbh, I don’t think it’s a frequent problem (as in: a bitrotted package and the maintainer blocking takeover).