Обсуждение: Proposal for change in approach in developer listings

Folks,

looking at the out-of-date info on the developer listings, I'm thinking that
the sentence-long descriptions we have for each developer are a bit too long
for us to really maintain them.    I think we should do this:

1) Divide the listings into 4 sections:
Core, Emeritus, Major Contributors, Contributors
2) List only people's names, countries, and (optionally, if the developer
wants it) employers.

2 might be amended to include single-word descriptions of their contributions.
Example:
Joe Conway, USA, Symer Inc., arrays, PL/pgSQL, PL/R.

With the one-word descriptions or not, it should get a *lot* easier to
maintain the list.   In fact, it seems to me that it ought to be
databased ...

Also, I'm opposed to listing, say "Web","Advocacy", and "Related Projects" or
whatever contributors seperately.   That once again leads to the implication
that some kinds of contributions are more valuable than others, and a lot of
the "less valuable" contributions nevertheless keep us running.

Thoughts?  Aside from the fact that we need some rules on who's a "major
contributor" anyway?

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

On Saturday 18 December 2004 19:37, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
> looking at the out-of-date info on the developer listings, I'm thinking
> that the sentence-long descriptions we have for each developer are a bit
> too long for us to really maintain them.    I think we should do this:
>
> 1) Divide the listings into 4 sections:
> Core, Emeritus, Major Contributors, Contributors
> 2) List only people's names, countries, and (optionally, if the developer
> wants it) employers.
>
> 2 might be amended to include single-word descriptions of their
> contributions. Example:
> Joe Conway, USA, Symer Inc., arrays, PL/pgSQL, PL/R.
>
> With the one-word descriptions or not, it should get a *lot* easier to
> maintain the list.   In fact, it seems to me that it ought to be
> databased ...
>
> Also, I'm opposed to listing, say "Web","Advocacy", and "Related Projects"
> or whatever contributors seperately.   That once again leads to the
> implication that some kinds of contributions are more valuable than others,
> and a lot of the "less valuable" contributions nevertheless keep us
> running.
>
> Thoughts?  Aside from the fact that we need some rules on who's a "major
> contributor" anyway?

I'm not sure why people have changed the format/content from what we have on
developer.postgresql.org; that seems a little in poor taste since it has
generally been informal recognition of contributors from the developers
point-of-view.  That always seemed to have worked, or at least I don't recall
hearing any complaints.

---
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Treat
> Sent: 19 December 2004 15:40
> To: josh@agliodbs.com
> Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Proposal for change in approach in
> developer listings
>
> I'm not sure why people have changed the format/content from
> what we have on
> developer.postgresql.org; that seems a little in poor taste
> since it has
> generally been informal recognition of contributors from the
> developers
> point-of-view.  That always seemed to have worked, or at
> least I don't recall
> hearing any complaints.

It hasn't really changed. I have updated a couple of folks descriptions
and added Alexey as there is no doubt he has put a lot of work into the
framework - but that's no different from what I would have done on
developer.postgresql.org anyway. Afaict, other than that just the source
& layout have been tidied up during the move.

Regards, Dave