Unlike domain names where people actually pay for them, I think package repositories like npm should punish squatting like GitHub.
For example I contacted GitHub because I wanted an organization name for a company I'm registering in 2017. Their support looked at the organization, which had zero public or private repositories, told me they went beyond a time period of zero activity in which their name could be reclaimed by someone else and I got it (and no they didn't tell me the time period, it was just a vague statement regarding it).
NPM should look at these and if they've been empty for X amount of time, remove them. Now the problem is controlling new squatters so they may need to offer a more complex solution when a name returns to the pool but I think it needs to be done (I know names don't typically return to be re-used in NPM but if they're removing them for squatting I think they should).
Good news! npm's dispute policy actually explicitly covers this behaviour. If someone wanted any of these packages, npm would likely be happy to give it to them. You can also report them to have the packages removed by emailing them at support@npmjs.com
It's right in the footer with a clear name in all NPM's pages... it took me no time when I was looking for it back in the day to find the policy, maybe the problem is you never needed it?
You're referring to a link buried within 'Legal Stuff' at the bottom of the page, away from all other actionable sections linked to a package.
I don't think that's even close to being a satisfactory call-to-action.
Whenever I've picked a name for a project, I've always generated them by combining words together with hyphens. If I realised that I could take over package names that were being squatted, there are many times I would have done so.
Yes? I mean the one clearly labeled "Package Name Disputes"... it's not like this page needs a big CTA, it's something you'd reasonably expect to find within a "Policy" or "Terms of Service" page but instead it has a link on every footer.
And actually... "Package name disputes" are mentioned in different ways within 5 of the 6 links in the "Legal stuff" section, so I am pretty sure that it's just for lack of reading/searching, not because they are actively trying to hide it.
If a package has only one published version with no dependents or real users, the call-to-action should be a button near the top of the screen that should describe the action expected (e.g. "claim package name").
Clicking on this button should start a partly-automated, formal process and not require writing an email or manually soliciting contact with the original owner. This process can then be managed by NPM, who can stop relying on hearsay over whether these disputes are being resolved.
The only reason to bury this within the 'Legal Stuff' section is when you erroneously assume that this action is likely to be a legal issue and informed by patent, trademark or copyright law.
The current solution is cumbersome, not pointed to sufficiently, and likely to become progressively worse as the NPM ecosystem expands. I'd bet many NPM users aren't familiar with this resolution process. (Apart from those that remember the kik and left-pad debacles. "hahah, you’re actually being a dick. so, fuck you. don’t e-mail me back.")
All I'm saying is that this process needs to be clear, structured and measurable.
If NPM was doing a good job here, this HN post would never have been upvoted.
I agree with that, it could be improved and automatically detect abusers.
NPM is also improving, AFAIK they were really messy in the beginning and now getting better and better. This issue came up as I mentioned in other places because of an initial error that has been corrected long ago (case-sensitive package names). So hopefully someone will see your comment and do something about it.
How would you like us to better publicize it? I agree it's a few clicks away from the home page, but as others have noted not a lot of people need to enter this process, so giving it prominence on e.g. every package page would be overkill.
Empirically, it doesn't just shuffle the problem around, it dramatically reduces it. On Google Code, every time you tried to create a project, the name would always be taken. On Github, every time you try to create a project, you can go ahead and use the name, and I haven't heard of anyone having trouble finding something acceptable to use for their account name.
I also was able to do this for my startup https://github.com/commando from GitHub. @commando was being squatted, but after they researched and I proved I was the owner, they transferred the organization name to me. +1 for GitHub.
A few points: as @chrisfosterelli noted, if a package is being squatted we'll give it to you, no problem.
As for why we don't automatically/proactively handle squatting: it's a very thorny problem. Whatever minimum standard we applied to count as "not squatting" could be trivially discovered and gamed, eventually resulting in people who wanted to squat on a name just publishing a copy of `express` or something to that name as a placeholder.
Relatedly: you can report offensive, or deliberately confusing package names ("typosquatting") and we will take those package names down permanently.
For example I contacted GitHub because I wanted an organization name for a company I'm registering in 2017. Their support looked at the organization, which had zero public or private repositories, told me they went beyond a time period of zero activity in which their name could be reclaimed by someone else and I got it (and no they didn't tell me the time period, it was just a vague statement regarding it).
NPM should look at these and if they've been empty for X amount of time, remove them. Now the problem is controlling new squatters so they may need to offer a more complex solution when a name returns to the pool but I think it needs to be done (I know names don't typically return to be re-used in NPM but if they're removing them for squatting I think they should).