We do not have any policies to define 'squatting', and so will not hand over ownership of a package for that reason.
Surely it makes sense to allow someone to use the crate name if an existing "crate" is clearly not being used and there is no apparent attempt at doing so. Off the top of my head, here are some basic criteria:
- Unquestionably useless — zero useful behavior. A trivial check for this is if there are no public exports.
- Most recent publish at least six months ago. If combined with a possible public repository, this would indicate lack of development.
- Crate owner cannot be reached, or was reached and did not respond within one month.
Excluding the last point, this would include every crate by swmon, which I think is a good baseline. I'd think that it would make sense to have the potential new author contact the crates team, which would then start the one-month time period for attempted contact.
Let me know your thoughts — I certainly think something needs to be done in this area.