Tracking issue for RFC 3119: Rust-lang crate ownership policy

[Manishearth]

This is the tracking issue for work related to rust-lang/rfcs#3119

The general shape of this work is laid out in the RFC: I have a spreadsheet of crates that are either owned by rust-lang crate owners, or are maintained within Rust repositories. Team members should feel free to ask me to grant them edit permissions to this spreadsheet.

The "tentative team" and "tentative verdict" columns are guessed and not binding. Teams should feel free to edit them.

Teams can "claim" a crate by adding their name to the "Investigating team" column. This means they are committing to figuring out which category the crate belongs to, if it is indeed their crate. It is acceptable for a team to run this process and determine that the crate is in fact not theirs, and hand it over to the team they think owns it. If a team has claimed a crate that you think better belongs to yours, please contact them and work it out.

Once a team has made decisions on a crate, they should update the "verdict" column and make the appropriate edits to the crate readme. Ideally, they should also fix up the crate permissions to only contain rust-lang-owner and the GitHub team.

[Manishearth]

Currently @rust-lang/libs has started investigation on a ton of crates, and given that they're most likely the team with the most crates I'm inclined to let them run with that before working with additional teams.

But cc @rust-lang/compiler if they want to have an early look!

[m-ou-se]

cc @KodrAus

[ehuss]

Opened a PR at rust-lang/rust-forge#753 to copy the policy to the forge.

[kornelski]

It would be nice if the status of the crates was somehow embedded in the crates' metadata or ownership, rather than a Google spreadsheet.

On https://lib.rs, I'd like to highlight crates that are Rust-official and as good as being in the standard library in terms of maintenance and security, but for that I need some clear indicator.