It's not just that this is boring work, but there's disagreement about Cargo and crates.io's direction. There are a lot of changes people would like to make that get turned down.

Crates.io and Cargo need namespaces, but the leadership flatly says no.

There's a big problem with name squatting, and nothing is being done about this either.

I get that there are more technically important issues around builds and reproducibility and the like, but this is pretty foundational stuff.

> Crates.io and Cargo need namespaces, but the leadership flatly says no.

They are favorable to crate-name-as-namespace (so that once you have the tokio crate you can use tokio as a namespace) and there's ongoing work on that. But as said above, it takes work to implement.

There's no desire for other meaning of the word "namespace" because famously nobody ever made a well-reasoned proposal (despite the amount of social media outrage over the lack of namespace).

That and the existing reply are incorrect. Almost everyone has repeated the same superficial requests and design work and not dug into the problems to come up with a proposal that respectfully threads seemingly contradictory requirements (the answer isn't to be dismissive but to step through costs/benefits and explain why a path is justified).

https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/survey-of-organizational-o... is a start in just collecting existing knowledge in one place.