Обсуждение: PostgreSQL Contributor levels
We have this curated list of PostgreSQL Contributors on the website: https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/ There are two levels currently (3 when counting the Core Team): * Major Contributor * Contributor You are a "Contributor" when you appear on this list. But we also have long lists of "individuals [who] have contributed" in the release notes: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/release-17.html#RELEASE-17-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS You are a contributor when you contributed to the release. Clearly, there are more ways to contribute, and the term "Contributor" on the curated list should probably be more specific. In the Contributors Team, we have been floating around ideas on how the structure should look like in the future, but we would like to gather more input from the project. * People put high value in the curated list (people get hired for being in there), so we try to keep the standards high. * At the same time, we want to be more inclusive. People in the release notes are clearly contributors as well, so we are thinking about adding a 3rd category. * We need (at least) a better name for "Contributor" (currently level 2). Ideas included "Sustained Contributor" and "Recognized Contributor", but there are probably better ideas. * If we add a (low threshold, easy to get into) 3rd level, we need a name. Maybe "Acknowledged Contributor", maybe just "Contributor". * "Major Contributor" is probably fine. * It's not yet clear how we would present 3 levels in that list, as the page is currently already very long. Possibly the 3rd level would appear in a separate page. * A related project (to be discussed in parallel) is introducing contributor tags/badges like "PG 18 contributor" "PG committer" or "PGconf.EU 2025 organzier" that we could show in the list or related pages. Getting tags/badges would then likely bring people into the 3rd level. Any feedback or input is welcome! Christoph
On 8/15/25 10:30, Christoph Berg wrote: > We have this curated list of PostgreSQL Contributors on the website: > https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/ > There are two levels currently (3 when counting the Core Team): > * Major Contributor > * Contributor > > You are a "Contributor" when you appear on this list. > > But we also have long lists of "individuals [who] have contributed" in > the release notes: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/release-17.html#RELEASE-17-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS > > You are a contributor when you contributed to the release. > > Clearly, there are more ways to contribute, and the term "Contributor" > on the curated list should probably be more specific. > * We need (at least) a better name for "Contributor" (currently level 2). > Ideas included "Sustained Contributor" and "Recognized Contributor", > but there are probably better ideas. > > * If we add a (low threshold, easy to get into) 3rd level, we need a > name. Maybe "Acknowledged Contributor", maybe just "Contributor". > > * "Major Contributor" is probably fine. I think sticking with gradations of Contributor is fine, as in: Major Contributor Sustained Contributor Contributor > > * It's not yet clear how we would present 3 levels in that list, as the > page is currently already very long. Possibly the 3rd level would > appear in a separate page. Something like?: https://getbootstrap.com/docs/5.3/components/accordion/#how-it-works > Any feedback or input is welcome! > > Christoph > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
Hi Christoph,
I think "Significant Contributor" fits in between "Major Contributor" and "Contributor".
"Sustained" has a time element and sounds terrible on a CV :-) , and "Recognised" is kind of redundant, since they're all recognition levels.
Best,
Jimmy
I think "Significant Contributor" fits in between "Major Contributor" and "Contributor".
"Sustained" has a time element and sounds terrible on a CV :-) , and "Recognised" is kind of redundant, since they're all recognition levels.
Best,
Jimmy
On 15 August 2025 18:30:23 BST, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote:
We have this curated list of PostgreSQL Contributors on the website:
https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/
There are two levels currently (3 when counting the Core Team):
* Major Contributor
* Contributor
You are a "Contributor" when you appear on this list.
But we also have long lists of "individuals [who] have contributed" in
the release notes:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/release-17.html#RELEASE-17-ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
You are a contributor when you contributed to the release.
Clearly, there are more ways to contribute, and the term "Contributor"
on the curated list should probably be more specific.
In the Contributors Team, we have been floating around ideas on
how the structure should look like in the future, but we would like to
gather more input from the project.
* People put high value in the curated list (people get hired for
being in there), so we try to keep the standards high.
* At the same time, we want to be more inclusive. People in the
release notes are clearly contributors as well, so we are thinking
about adding a 3rd category.
* We need (at least) a better name for "Contributor" (currently level 2).
Ideas included "Sustained Contributor" and "Recognized Contributor",
but there are probably better ideas.
* If we add a (low threshold, easy to get into) 3rd level, we need a
name. Maybe "Acknowledged Contributor", maybe just "Contributor".
* "Major Contributor" is probably fine.
* It's not yet clear how we would present 3 levels in that list, as the
page is currently already very long. Possibly the 3rd level would
appear in a separate page.
* A related project (to be discussed in parallel) is introducing
contributor tags/badges like "PG 18 contributor" "PG committer" or
"PGconf.EU 2025 organzier" that we could show in the list or related
pages. Getting tags/badges would then likely bring people into the
3rd level.
Any feedback or input is welcome!
Christoph
On Aug 16, 2025, at 10:48, Jimmy Angelakos <vyruss@hellug.gr> wrote: > I think "Significant Contributor" fits in between "Major Contributor" and "Contributor”. +1 to “Significant Contributor”. Seems to capture the nuance best of anything I can think of. D
Вложения
On Sat, 2025-08-16 at 13:11 -0400, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Aug 16, 2025, at 10:48, Jimmy Angelakos <vyruss@hellug.gr> wrote: > > > I think "Significant Contributor" fits in between "Major Contributor" and "Contributor”. > > +1 to “Significant Contributor”. Seems to capture the nuance best of anything I can think of. +1 Laurenz Albe
On 15.08.25 19:30, Christoph Berg wrote: > You are a "Contributor" when you appear on this list. > > But we also have long lists of "individuals [who] have contributed" in > the release notes: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/release-17.html#RELEASE-17- > ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS > > You are a contributor when you contributed to the release. > > Clearly, there are more ways to contribute, and the term "Contributor" > on the curated list should probably be more specific. The threshold for getting into the release notes is absolutely minimal, and I think it would devalue the curation work that you are doing by somehow combining the two data sets or making a third level based on the release notes or something like that. Personally, I think it's all fine as it is. Maybe an additional adjective in front of "Contributor", but it's not a big deal IMO.
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
> On 15.08.25 19:30, Christoph Berg wrote:
>> Clearly, there are more ways to contribute, and the term "Contributor"
>> on the curated list should probably be more specific.
> The threshold for getting into the release notes is absolutely minimal,
> and I think it would devalue the curation work that you are doing by
> somehow combining the two data sets or making a third level based on the
> release notes or something like that.
+1. For example, a single bug report is enough to get you into the
commit log and thence the release notes. There's no requirement for
continuing effort, but I think even the lowest level of the curated
list should imply some amount of that.
Perhaps the release notes could be useful as a sanity check though.
Say, if a person appears in the last three release-note lists and
is not in the curated list, maybe that is a name to take another
look at.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 00:06, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote: > Personally, I think it's all fine as it is. Maybe an additional > adjective in front of "Contributor", but it's not a big deal IMO. +1 I think adding "Sustained" there is a good idea. It's more accurate and should prevent false hopes from people who think they'll make it onto that list if they submit 1 patch. David
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 01:58, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Perhaps the release notes could be useful as a sanity check though. > Say, if a person appears in the last three release-note lists and > is not in the curated list, maybe that is a name to take another > look at. I think now that committers are using a more consistent format in the commit messages that includes email addresses, it should be easier to script up that sort of thing. e.g. HAVING MAX(commit_timestamp) - MIN(commit_timestamp) > INTERVAL 'N years' AND count(*) > M. Perhaps it'd still need a manual review process, but something like that might stop people falling through the cracks and being forgotten. David
On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 02:06:22PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 15.08.25 19:30, Christoph Berg wrote: > > You are a "Contributor" when you appear on this list. > > > > But we also have long lists of "individuals [who] have contributed" in > > the release notes: > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/release-17.html#RELEASE-17- > > ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS > > > > You are a contributor when you contributed to the release. > > > > Clearly, there are more ways to contribute, and the term "Contributor" > > on the curated list should probably be more specific. > > The threshold for getting into the release notes is absolutely minimal, and > I think it would devalue the curation work that you are doing by somehow > combining the two data sets or making a third level based on the release > notes or something like that. > > Personally, I think it's all fine as it is. Maybe an additional adjective > in front of "Contributor", but it's not a big deal IMO. Just a reminder that we have gotten regular complaints that we focused too much on code contributions vs. non-code, docs, events, blogs, CoC, etc activity in the contributor criteria. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 12:43, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 02:06:22PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 15.08.25 19:30, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > You are a "Contributor" when you appear on this list.
> >
> > But we also have long lists of "individuals [who] have contributed" in
> > the release notes:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/release-17.html#RELEASE-17-
> > ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
> >
> > You are a contributor when you contributed to the release.
> >
> > Clearly, there are more ways to contribute, and the term "Contributor"
> > on the curated list should probably be more specific.
>
> The threshold for getting into the release notes is absolutely minimal, and
> I think it would devalue the curation work that you are doing by somehow
> combining the two data sets or making a third level based on the release
> notes or something like that.
>
> Personally, I think it's all fine as it is. Maybe an additional adjective
> in front of "Contributor", but it's not a big deal IMO.
Just a reminder that we have gotten regular complaints that we focused
too much on code contributions vs. non-code, docs, events, blogs, CoC,
etc activity in the contributor criteria.
+1 The ecosystem is much larger than the code in the server alone.
Dave
On 8/19/25 09:43, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 02:06:22PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 15.08.25 19:30, Christoph Berg wrote: > Just a reminder that we have gotten regular complaints that we focused > too much on code contributions vs. non-code, docs, events, blogs, CoC, > etc activity in the contributor criteria. > As an an FYI, I on the Contributors list. My contribution has been pretty much solely answering questions on the mailing lists. I suspect I am not alone in getting there for non-code activities. -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 02:15:40PM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 8/19/25 09:43, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 02:06:22PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > On 15.08.25 19:30, Christoph Berg wrote: > > > Just a reminder that we have gotten regular complaints that we focused > > too much on code contributions vs. non-code, docs, events, blogs, CoC, > > etc activity in the contributor criteria. > > > > As an an FYI, I on the Contributors list. My contribution has been pretty > much solely answering questions on the mailing lists. I suspect I am not > alone in getting there for non-code activities. Ah, yes, email activity too. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.