>>>> No offense taken.  Who knows what's going to happen after I graduate for
>>>> example—maybe I'll get a full time job fixing bugs in Sage, or maybe I'll be
>>>> flipping burgers. :-)

>>>> It's important to remember that if it's standard someone _has_ to maintain
>>>> it.  Of course, it's also more likely that someone _will_ maintain it.

>>>> -Ivan

>>> From the point of view that making sage-mode a standard package would
>>> increase the likelihood that it is maintained, I would support it
>>> being included as a standard package.

>> Do you say that because you feel it hasn't been maintained well, or that it might not be in the future since the original author has moved on?

>> -Ivan

> I said that in the spirit that I think sage-mode is a useful package
> and any steps we can take to ensure that useful packages continue to
> be well maintained is a good thing. I haven't been using it for all
> that long, so I can't comment on if it has or hasn't been maintained
> well in the past. As for the future, who knows, but making it a
> standard package will increase its chances to thrive compared to
> making it an optional package.

> What is your opinion as the current maintainer?