Child Thread: Survey of organizational ownership designs for Cargo and Crates.io

Well, so. I probably hit a lot of cases in this, so @epage happy to be interviewed in the implementation.

Independent of namespacing implementation, we have:

  • A company name (company names are trademark like) that has a community-wide nickname (ferrous-systems, ferrous)
  • A trademark for a bigger product that we want to keep "closed" (ferrocene), we do not want someone to publish under that name.
  • 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.

So, as an org, we at least have a 1-N relationship to namespaces.

Edit: In case 3), there is actually a reason to have that as a case - community protection. You don't want an open vendor namespace to be "rug-pulled". But that's more policy than implementation.

1 Like