[steveklabnik]

Yeah, there is something in this space for sure. I think one of the issues is time; code can start off as a fun experiment, but transform into one that's not, which maybe just means that it is metadata associated with a specific release, yadda yadda, but there's a lot here to think about. For sure.

I recently have been accepting some PRs to some Ruby code that I wrote ten years ago that ended up being still in-use today. "Shitpost" or "baby's first crate" isn't accurate, but "hey I was very serious about this before but now it's not as high priority for me but that doesn't mean I abandoned it" is a tough thing to encode.

[evntdrvn]

Absolutely true re evolution. That's why it would have to probably be crate keywords rather than categories, I'm thinking.

This whole space about encoding library non-technical aspects like intent and status seems like it has a lot of possibilities. I wonder if there's prior art in other language ecosystems?

[steveklabnik]

Perl has the Acme namespace for expressly silly projects, that’s the first thing that comes to mind…

[lcall]

Maybe defining the interesting axes (for each, one for whether it is considered a goal, the other for whether it has in fact prioritized that goal in practice; not saying whether it succeeded in others' eyes), and for each axis give a number 0-10 (or whatever) rating it, in the author's view. Then maybe users of the library can give similar ratings as they compare it with others.

Or not.

[lcall]

I replied just below, to another comment, with an idea. Not fleshed out well, but oh well.