So, the main blocking problem for transitioning to the Threadiverse is that there are too many alternatives?

I know that the Rust project doesn’t often make things “official”, but in this case this would be a very easy way to solve a very real problem.

1. Hold a vote, which server we use. Within all the community, with everyone who has push access on GitHub, within the Leadership Council, on URLO, whatever. It doesn’t matter that much and, honestly, it’s bikeshedding.
2. Advertise it on the website and TWIR, and make the mods part of the Rust Moderation hierarchy.

Later, when we have some way to collect communities together, we can diversify again to have a bit more resiliency against one server going down.

I know the Leadership Council is probably busy, but I would really love if they would do this (though I’m not very deep in the Rust Project myself, so I can’t kick this off).

And lib.rs will suppress the visibility of crates it thinks are “bad”

So does blessed.rs, and yet I never heard anyone ask blessed.rs to be more objective or include crypto - probably because it’s really obvious that blessed.rs is very opinionated, way more opinionated than lib.rs. I’m wondering if lib.rs could save some hassle by making its opinionated nature more clear, maybe by changing the top text from “Lightweight, opinionated, curated, unofficial alternative to crates.io.” to “Lightweight, opinionated, curated, unofficial. For objective, unopinionated data go to crates.io.”

Or maybe your point 2. from above would actually be the best solution - while I don’t agree that lib.rs has to provide objective data, people obviously expect it to, so, if it’s not too much work then it would surely be a nice way to solve some drama.

It’s not that people don’t know that crates.io exists, right?

I’d expect that the people who do know that it exists go there in the first place if they want objective data. Or go look on multiple sites if they are looking for a new crate for a relevant project (search using crates.io, search using lib.rs, look at blessed.rs, google) - at least that’s how I’m doing it.

2. Allow opting out of the opinionated parts in a relatively easy way. You can’t force other adults to align with your philosophy here, and trying is just going to cause problems.

Would a link to crates.io be enough here? When I want objective data, I go to crates.io; when I want curated info about crates or want to find a new crate for some topic I go to lib.rs; when I want hand-written info about crates I go to blessed.rs/crates.

I personally agree with your point 1. and slightly agree with your point 3.

Finally! I really admire how much work people are putting into getting a nice project structure. Last time, the project governance just started changing while the formal definition of leadership wasn’t adopted, so that the formal definition got meaningless: https://without.boats/blog/if-you-can-keep-it/ - I hope that this time, there will be a lightweight-enough process to adapt the formal definition of leadership. Maybe the current RFC should be made into some document on the website, and then there are new RFCs (or FCPs) that change it.