Offer to co-maintain TFA

+1 from me for acbramely to help out.

I don't have a strong opinion about whether that's on a new branch vs existing nor on whether a new branch would come from 8.x-1.x or from 2.x.

In my opinion TFA doesn't need a co-maintainer, it needs a maintainer (Actually an Owner since they are not around), someone who will/can make decisions that a low level co-maintainer can't/shouldn't. Someone who will guide the project and doesn't have to worry about their decisions being overruled, or making a decisions that has a large support burden associated with it when they may not be around to help with that burden.

IMO here is the current status of maintainers (as it relates to TFA):

@greggles is almost non-existent, opinions every now and then on issues however hasn't made roadmap defining decisions. Has at least commented on a few of the security issues (unsure if this is in their DST role or Maintainer role).
@coltrane is non existent
@daggerhart is non existent
@jcnventura has said their not maintaining the module and is essential non-existent.
@nerdstein's is non existent
@poker10 Joined for the D7 branch and when questioned never committed to staying around to assist with the the D8+ releases. Has commented on a few of the previous security issues.
@cmlara (myself) Gone from uncountable hours a week to dealing security focused issues only (discussed reasons why elsewhere) Been essentially sole developer, however as just a co-maintainer not my spot to be making a number of decisions and have been needing a maintainer to sign on and guide the project.

We have no leadership. I can't say what the maintainers will view of it, however if you really want to see this project move forward, I encourage you to find someone they will appoint owner (perhaps that is you?), ask to leave/remove any maintainers who are not active from having ability to make changes (inactive maintainers with code commit privileges are a security risk) or those you feel don't fit into the future roadmap.

To be clear, I'm not objecting to the offer, this module clearly needs more dedicated work effort, and as the only even remotely active developer I certainly have not been pushing issues forward this past year. @acbramley has a known history in contributing to Drupal in general. I'm just hoping to point out taa new co-maintainer is a very short term bandaid (months) not a long term fix.

I agree it would be great to get someone who wants to be owner of the module, but understand if acbramley or other people are not interested in that level of commitment.

Who is "they"?

Sorry, that was intended to refer to current owner/maintainers, those with the authority to manage who has access to the module and appoint them into positions.

I made acbramley a maintainer as a start. We can consider a move to owner if/when that becomes appropriate.

I've talked with coltrane in the last week (not about anything Drupal related) and am confident we could get his input if we need it.

Welcome @acbramley!

I started the 2.x branch a long time ago when I had plans to completely overhaul the architecture of the module, and then life happened and I didn't. It is still a step in the right direction, but this module is also having to fight against Drupal core in doing a few things that Drupal core doesn't contemplate.

Anyway, it seems to be your baby now. Have fun with it. I had, for a little while.

@jcnventura - if you have time now, I think your ideas and effort would be very welcome.