[iterminate]

A bunch of people will come out of the woodwork drawn to the idea of being able to immediately walk into managing a popular project, but it'll end poorly. If your project has outgrown you, or you've outgrown your project, then you can either shut it down gracefully or transition into community ownership (by finding people who have a demonstrable pre-existing interest in the project itself and allowing them to take over).

Shutting the project down gracefully doesn't mean it has to end, and it doesn't mean failure: shutting down the project gives invested community members the chance to fork it and demonstrate that they want to put the work in to run a natural successor to your project, and people will naturally gravitate towards the best fork over time. Afterall, without people with a vision leading it, it's just code.

Handing over ownership feels cleanest but it's rarely the best outcome (unless you're handing it over to a natural successor).

[franga2000]

They're explicitly looking for an organisation, not individuals, which should filter out most of this.

[renaudpawlak]

Yes indeed

[renaudpawlak]

Shutting down the projet and/or change the OS license to make it easier to fork is a potential option. However, I think it's worth asking if some organisation could be interested first. I believe JSweet could be more helpful if it was backed by some org that would have a use case of JSweet and maintain it for it's own purpose.