Re: list of contributors [rethought]

On Saturday 03 May 2003 20:41, Gabor Hojtsy wrote: Hi! Just back from my easter holidays and red through the threads about the changes about authors/contributors/helpers/license changing;-) I hope I got the point, but I am a bit "confused" so let me ask some questions ;-) [...] > > 4. We cannot list every contributor on the frontpage, there > is not enough space for it. We will have a frontpage with some names on, those are editors in classical sense and active contributors? right? Qouting Erica Douglass (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=phpdoc&m=105199882513272&w=2): I just don't see how you're going to make it fair by making the list based on personal selection. I don't think anyone is going to argue whether or not he/she is a top 10 or "major" contributor; we pretty much all know who those are. I see conflicts arising, however, if there is no standard metric to determine who goes on the secondary list. It doesn't seem to be too difficult to get those persons? ;-) Am I right only two persons, Goba and Philip nomintated themself? The rest of the mails was mainly dealing with the process how to list contributors? > Where to list contributors [...] ... seems to be more difficult, but I think Philip (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=phpdoc&m=105190322919524&w=2) did some nice sumup of grouping to credit contributors. > > So my conclusions are: > > -> Everyone should be listed who deserves it > -> Therefore a credits page is needed, with as many roles > as we define, with people with multiple roles listed in > multiple places > -> A credits page is enough (no need to have a major authors list), > with the text on the frontpage: > > PHP Manual by the <link>PHP Documentation Group</link> > > All this is in respect to those who won't get listed on the frontpage. > With this solution we can even list guys who 'only' contribute to > extension level documentation, and keep major contributors on top of the > list. > > I am also +1 for the method suggeted by Alexander Aulbach, then Philip > and then Jouni, to list 'historical' contributors separately, and give > current contributors a better recognition. I hope the current > authors/editors will let this go ;) I like this ideas and I want to make a proposal: proper grouping definitions, we already have: (A) technical conributors (B) classical contributors/editors (C) note contributors (D) consistantly active conributors (E) occasional contributors (F) retired contributors/"old" authors maybe more? especially the distinction between D and E is not very clear ;-), once given such a list I think every whatever contributor is able to put him/herself to the right category? I think we should focus on this grouping, provide the list and let the people find their place;-) Friedhelm