While I agree lack of experience or internal knowledge is a problem for complex projects (ahem, etcd), most "dead" open source libraries IME suffer from these t

While I agree lack of experience or internal knowledge is a problem for complex projects (ahem, etcd), most "dead" open source libraries IME suffer from these two properties: 1. the people with the commit bit in the original repository are all gone 2. people fork the repository to fix one minor thing, and never update again I've frequently ran into libraries where there are multiple forks with no activity, and it is not obvious whether there is a "best" choice of fork, and it is unlikely that the next fork will become the successor to the original project. There's a certain social problem that I can't describe very well. Projects should have a form of "succession planning" or else they end up in the state I just described (impossible to commit to the original repo, numerous inactive forks that merged 1 or 2 stale PRs).