FWICS many of the recent bumps of crypto@ packages were done by people outside the team. Given that most of the packages were actively maintained by a single person from the team only, maybe it'd be better to disband the team and find individual maintainers for individual packages?
To be honest I still have hope that Alon returns at some point and continues doing those crypto@ packages. So I want to suggest to not rush anything here. Yes, if it turns out that Alon retires we have to find new people for these packages but let's keep the option open that new developers can join the crypto team.
I should point out that the Crypto team has 5 people right now, and they mostly seem to maintain a subset of those packages. I'm not convinced that 'everything crypto' is a good scope for a project.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #2) > I should point out that the Crypto team has 5 people right now, and they > mostly seem to maintain a subset of those packages. I'm not convinced that > 'everything crypto' is a good scope for a project. Yes and no.. I'd start by adding a primary developer as responsible to packages (like already done for gnupg-related), but having a fuller team with more understanding as backup is always useful. Presumably those in crypto team today are more up-to-date on the several discussions happening across the crypto-space as concepts/standards/algorithms/implementations does touch upon this across the spectrum of packages.
I can join and/or add myself to some important packages we are using at our clustering setup daily.
Ping. Anything new here? Do you have any specific packages you'd like dropped to maintainer-needed? Or should I aim for all packages that don't have a 'primary maintainer'?
