You really should look to other ecosystems and see what lessons they've learned. In java, packages are normally "namespaced" by the author's reverse domain name, like `org.lwjgl/lwjgl`.

Since clojure uses maven as well, the same applies, but clojure tools like leiningen decided to create a shortcut: if the group and artifact name are the same, like `iglu/iglu`, they can be collapsed into one name: `iglu`

Well, that just encouraged everyone to choose collapsible names. In retrospect, this didn't buy us much. Who cares about saving a few characters of typing? Most now seem to agree it wasn't a good idea.

When the "collapsed" name falls out of maintenance, the forks will all seem somehow less "official", even if they are much higher quality. Forks are inevitable; why would you want to discourage them?

I finally decided to start using the reverse of my personal domain for my future libraries. The java folks were right all along.

> Well, that just encouraged everyone to choose collapsible names. In retrospect, this didn't buy us much. Who cares about saving a few characters of typing?

This appears to be using evidence to prove the opposite conclusion; if everyone voluntarily chose to use shorter names, then it means that everyone cares about having shorter names. If there is a more substantial argument for why people have decided that the collapsing was mistake, I'd like to read it.

I didn't choose the shorter names because i "care[d] about having shorter names", i did so defensively, because i figured if i chose `net.sekao/iglu`, someone else would choose `iglu/iglu` which would imply that theirs was the original or official version.

Another point i didn't mention is that maven was designed from the start to be decentralized; many companies run their own private maven repos, but also pull artifacts from maven central. Having group names reduces the chances of collisions between their private servers and a public maven server.

That's a better rationale, although I don't think that really solves your stated problem; as an uninformed user I am still more likely to think that iglu/iglu is the more authoritative source there. Given this, any project that wants to authoritatively own its identifier should probably also register its own top-level namespace... which unfortunately brings us back around to where we started.