[PostgreSQL-www] Contributor listing policy

There is no major developer section. There are:

Core
Major Contributors
Contributors

This particular change was discussed and debated publicly and the patch
submitted by me and approved, months ago. It is also why the
contributor list is not under developers anymore. It's under community.
The idea that a line of code is more important than the organization of
an army (users) is incorrect. Without one the other is pointless.
Not long. I could do it fairly easily.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL political pundit | Mocker of Dolphins

Of note on this is:

Editing the contributor listings will be carried out by the Core Team.

This is outside the scope of core purpose as they portray themselves.
Which is as a steering committee/release manager.

Although members of core could certainly be part of the process, I
think that like everything else in the infrastructure contributor
management should be lead by a team of individuals, a committee if you
will.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL political pundit | Mocker of Dolphins

Josh,
Actually, looking at the archives, there wasn't much discussion when you
submitted the patch; I doubt that most people realized the changes it made.
I know that I wasn't clear on it, noticing only the change in sort order, and
certainly the rest of the core team (or hackers) didn't discuss it.

Contributor listings are not a matter of *only* WWW team's discretion. In
fact, traditionally, contents of the developer listings have been determined
by the core team; if we're going to change that and give sole authority to
WWW maintainers, then I think we ought to have an *explicit* discussion about
that.
I'm hardly one to argue that non-code contributors aren't important. However,
I also don't see a reason to dramatically change the listings all at once;
why not do it in stages, with non-code contributors listed in the
"contributors" section this year, and under "major" maybe next year? Given
that non-code contributors currently aren't listed *at all* despite the
change in headings, I still see it moving in the right direction.

Futher, I don't feel that I -- as the core team member current preparing the
names for the contributor listings -- have a good handle on the difference
between a "major" and "minor" non-code contributor. *I* would like a year to
feel out some good practices.

The core team felt this was a reasonable compromise; Magnus felt it was a
reasonable compromise. So far, you're the only one to think it's not a
reasonable way to go, so I'd like to hear from some other people as well as
you.

Perhaps you should read again there are actually two threads and there
was a very long discussion. That every single core member spoke up at
least once except for Jan. The following is the thread on my patch
which changed the wording from Developers to Contributors and moved its
home under /community/.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-12/msg00022.php

And then a conversation you initiated on actually updating the list
last November.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-11/msg00432.php
As I understand it, traditionally Robert handled that with Core
oversight.
I am not sure where you got this. I never suggested in anyway it was
the sole responsibility or discretion of the WWW team.
The reason non code contributors aren't listed is the list has been
basically unmaintained for over a year. There are also code
contributors that aren't listed, Stefan being one of the most glaring
examples.

Secondly, using your reasoning it's o.k. to overlook the contributions
made by non code contributors, "because it's easier". It would be
easier just to remove the whole list. If you are going to start making
judgments on the value of someones contributions, you must do it in
full. You can not, in good conscious be arbitrary or selective.
Well I would like hear it from more than just you. Magnus hasn't said a
word publicly, neither has Dave, Jan, Marc, Tom, Bruce, Peter or the
several dozen of other major contributors that are or are not listed.
Currently you and I are the only one's speaking about this. Secondly
- -www is hardly the forum for this as this is not about "the website"
but about attribution to the contributors to the community which should
take place in a more populous forum such as -general.

Robert (who I believe is actually person in charge of this list) has
stated:

A major contributor is differentiated from other contributors based on
1) longevity in the community, 2) number of areas they work on, 3)
signifigance of the contributions that have been made.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-11/msg00488.php

Based on the above policy, code has nothing to do with it, the size of
contribution does. The fact that non core contributors haven't been
listed appears to be an oversight more than anything. One that is long
overdue to be fixed.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL political pundit | Mocker of Dolphins

Why is any of this discussion happening on pgsql-www? Surely it is not
the webteam's charter to determine who is or is not a contributor.

If, as is evidently the case, you are unwilling to defer to core's
opinions on the matter, you need to muster support for your position
on some more widely-read mailing list.
I don't particularly know who made the webpage edits, but it's always
been core's determination who is or is not listed.
Traditionally core has reconsidered the list shortly after each major
release. We were in fact in process of doing that now. The long delay
since the last changes is a direct result of the slipped 8.3 schedule.

regards, tom lane

Yes, I brought that up in reply :). I said, it should be discussed on
pgsql-general or other populated list. JoshB is the one that started
this on -www.
O.k.
Fair enough, I assume -hackers is not the place to have this
discussion. Should this be on -general?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL political pundit | Mocker of Dolphins

Josh,
I don't think so -- General is mostly newbies seeking help, not
contributors. Hackers would be the most applicable list, followed by
this list (already taken care of) and Advocacy for non-code contributors.

However, such a discussion is liable to take weeks. You need to ask
yourself whether the changes you want are worth spending weeks
sheperding an e-mail discussion, and then longer before the listings
actually get updated.

--Josh

This seems to discount my efforts in the whole process. My theory was if I
ever left it up to core, it would never get updated. Never is a long time, so
I suspect I'll be proven wrong in the long run, but so far I am correct.

I think we were all waiting for you to do your thing again :-)

Yes, that is correct. Basically, Robert drew up the changes he wanted to
do, and sent them by -core for approval.

That's because it hasn't yet been updated for 8.3.

Well, let me say it publically then, if the reference isn't enough. I think
it's a reasonable compromise to get started with, that we can continue
building on.

It was also presented as the solution that -core agreed on. I'm sure that
if Josh actually lied about that, someone would've spoken up quite fast.
But I strongly doubt that Josh would claim to present the "view of the core
team" if the discussion hadn't taken place.

//Magnus

I am in no way suggesting that Josh was lying.

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL political pundit | Mocker of Dolphins

Magnus,
Heh. As if I could get away with that -- I'd have until list lag caught
up to get blasted.

I guess one of the questions here is "who owns the contributor
listings?". It's not a question we've ever dealt with specifically
before, and it's unclear on even what *mailing list* would be involved
in discussing them. It seems like we'd need to involve half or more of
the lists.

For the last 3 years, nobody has discussed this because Robert just did
it and submitted the list to Core, which approved it. Now Robert is
tired of the work, and what was implicit needs to become explicit.

The reason I'm putting forward that Core ought to be ultimately
responsible is threefold:

1) Core is a central point of contact which is supposed to know what's
going on in the various disconnected mailing lists, and as such is our
only existing "central" coordinating group;

2) The seven Core team members place in the listings isn't going to
change, and thus we can argue about who should be where without
statutory personal bias;

3) Core does conventionally deal with other issues around contributor
status, such as CVS access, release notes, and (in extreme cases) banning.

Barring Core handling it, we'd have to form a separate committee, and
somehow pick people who would be both representative and relatively
impartial. That seems like it would increase the amount of work
involved in getting the listings updated siginificantly, to the point
where they might not get updated at all.

Given that the only identified real problem (listings not being updated
frequently enough) is not solved by forming a separate committee, why
not take the easiest path, at least until another concrete problem is
identified?

--Josh Berkus

As I suggested, Tom double suggested, I agreed and then I talked to
Bruce on the phone about this thread has been moved to a more populous
list. Please see the new thread on -advocacy.

Joshua D. Drake

- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL political pundit | Mocker of Dolphins

To be clear, I didn't get tired of the work, I actually enjoyed the work
(making sure others get recognition for thier efforts was a highlight for
me). What I did get tired of was that everytime I went to update the list
some yaywho would pipe up with yet another scheme to redraw the entire
listing.