I am not sure I understand well this process. Is the abusefilter really subject to removal as an unmaintained extension? If so, that was the worst idea of the century (yes, I know, it's only 2018). We need it. We use it.
Topic on Talk:Code stewardship reviews/Feedback solicitation/AbuseFilter
As @Bináris I'd like a clarification here. I think AbuseFilter needs more maintenance, yes; but I don't think we should remove it from our sites. I don't think you intend to do so, right? Just to be sure.
I'm 99% sure it isn't going to be sunset. If anything, it may be superseded by something more robust, or a complete rewrite. The reason why we're undergoing this review is because we don't have a responsible team or even a single devoted developer to respond to bug reports. I created one "Unbreak Now!" bug and it stayed open for over a month! So in others words, do not worry :) Only good will come out of this, but speaking up about the importance of the extension will further ensure it is in good hands moving forward, and that it gets the attention it deserves.
Yes, the situation is not optimal. I feel that either way WMF should fund a team to maintain and develop this kind of critical extensions so bugs are addressed, new features can be added and more work can be done. I do not think it'd be a bad idea at all, and I think WMF has enough funds to invest in this. Regards.
To help clarify, the Stewardship review process is meant to bring to light those items deployed to production that don't currently have any explicitly defined stewards. Although sunsetting may be a recommended outcome, it is not the only outcome or even the default. In the case of AbuseFilter, the ultimate desire is to get it the support that it needs, as it is clearly an important extension. Thanks.