Re: list of contributors [rethought]
| From: | Gabor Hojtsy | Date: | Mon, 05 May 2003 16:26:55 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: list of contributors [rethought] | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.doc |
| Request: | Send a blank email to phpdoc+get-969353190@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hi!
Just back from my easter holidaysWell, I hope you had a good break ;)
Well, it is not completely clear whether we will have names on the frontpage or not. It seemes to go on the way to *not* have this, but then several other comments came in, and now we are again at the middle of this I think ;)4. We cannot list every contributor on the frontpage, thereWe 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):is not enough space for it.
Am I right only two persons, Goba and Philip nomintated themself?As far as I have seen. What about you? ;))
The rest of the mails was mainly dealing with the process how to list contributors?All the mails dealt with that :)
Well, as I have written in my mail sent just some minutes ago, from all the reactions, it seems to be logical to nominate guys to the categories first and then see if we have any guys not nominated but would be nice to be listed. [I don't hide away from you that I think most of you will get listed anyway somehow :)]. This initial nomination process can also be *supported by* (but not based on) CVS stats, and probably with 'phpdoc resume's to throw all the proposals arrived so far for nomination. This can only be done if we can agree on this initial nomination process and can put away the wish to build a list with 200 names with some automation. If we start with the those who definitely should be credited, then there won't be too many guys left IMHO. GobaSo my conclusions are: [...]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;-)