Move to EOL

[mikelodder7]

I propose moving Ursa to EOL status.

None of the maintainers have the time or bandwidth to work on it anymore. For any upstream projects, I'm happy to help migrate away from it within reason.

[appetrosyan]

I vote NO. I have time to work on it, now, though not as much as I'd like. I was wprking on the continuation of #225 and it'd be ready in a couple of days.

The project is still valuable. Please don't kill it until its time.

[swcurran]

I think this is premature and should not be done without considerably more thought on the impact of the change. And we definitely don’t want to do while the dependencies on Ursa remain.

@mikelodder7 — have you discussed this with others?

[mikelodder7]

Yes we discussed on maintainers call today

[brentzundel]

I support moving Ursa to EOL unless it gets more active contribution.

I deeply appreciate the work that @appetrosyan has put in recently, but Mike and I don't have the capacity to contribute much in terms of code development. And few others have been contributing much of anything lately.

Others who have dependencies on Ursa will need to either pull those dependencies directly into their projects so EOL won't affect them, or contribute directly to Ursa so it can stay alive.

[appetrosyan]

Yes we discussed on maintainers call today

@mikelodder7 I apologise, had there not been a mixup with calendars (because of which I assumed the call is on Wednesday), I would have been happy to announce the work on #225 is going forward, as are the less trivial dependencies (in an upcoming PR).

[berendsliedrecht]

I would also like to volunteer with maintaining the library from a non-cryptographic point of view, updating the CI, reviewing PRs, separation, etc if that helps.

[dcmiddle]

but.. but.. I feel like we've only bearly just begun. 🐻 😢

[ryjones]

@mikelodder7 does this change do what you mentioned?