It just really rubs me the wrong way -- who can argue this isn't just a legitimate reboot of faker? Why does npm get to say that the future of faker isn't a dir

It just really rubs me the wrong way -- who can argue this isn't just a legitimate reboot of faker? Why does npm get to say that the future of faker isn't a directory with a single .md file? What's to stop this from happening with something higher profile, like npm just decides the new version of webpack is trash, and locks out the maintainers. Sounds like some sussy sourceforge shit to me. It's one thing if there is a virus or a cryptominer in the repo, or if the package maintainer gets hacked and needs control restored. It's another thing to exert editorial control over a popular package and lock out the maintainer. Bad look. Would rather live in the universe where people just re-upload the original under a different maintainer or (gasp) actually pay the guy for all the work he's done over the years, than the world in which certain npm packages become "too big to fail" so we never get to see the actual dynamics of failure, that are supposed to happen, come into play.