Daniel is, as always, harsher than I am comfortable with in this discussion, but I think his point has a lot of merit, and it echoes a sentiment that I have (and I'm sure others as well): we need more people taking the initiative of caring for the things that need care.
The OCaml ecosystem relies on volunteer maintainance. If you see something that is not as it should be (a package fails to build, a dependency is missing, it does not support the OCaml version you care for, it raises warnings on new OCaml releases, etc.), please consider investing a bit of time to get the issue fixed.
No one, of course, has the time to fix everything, and sometimes you must leave issues for others to resolve. But with all the efforts that have been made to have open, decentralized, contributions-welcoming basic blocks of the ecosystem, we can easily accommodate more people helping improve things.
It is natural to think of extra bureaucracy layers when we notice a problem; @bluddy above proposes a curated subset of package (curated by whom?), and a "mechanism" to handle package ownership. These all require a lot of work to design and set up, and it is not at all clear (for now) that they are necessary¹. On the other hand, lending a hand to solve the concrete problems that @bluddy's friend encountered is actionable, easy, and doable right now -- indeed this is what xnox and Daniel did in the issue pointed above.
¹: Of course it is difficult to judge when a new bureaucracy layer in fact becomes necessary. In my personal experience, when time is right a consensus often forms among the people involved in doing the corresponding work that indeed a new layer would help. Then there is also @avsm's general approach to replace processes and mechanisms (with a rigid structure agreed upon beforehand) by tools and automation (which informs and enable people to do the work), and so far has been fairly successful for the OCaml community.