Subject: Contributor listing policy

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:14:08 -0800

Folks,

*speaking* of being open about policies, I'm requesting comments on the 
Core Team's draft contributor listing policy:
http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/ContributorListings

Here's what's changing from current practice:
1) period for dropping people who have not been around is set to 2 years.  
No explicit period was set before.

2) non-code contributors now get listed in the "Contributors" section, but 
are not eligible for the "Major Developers" section.  This is a compromise 
between previous practice (not listing non-code contributors at all) and 
what some people would like to see ("Major Contributors" with non-code 
contributors); I figure we'll revisit this policy in a year or so.

3) this will require a member of the WWW team to add "year contributed" and 
"comments" non-displaying fields to the web tool we manage the contributor 
listings with.  How long would that take to add?

-- 
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:57:25 -0800

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:14:08 -0800
Josh Berkus <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> *speaking* of being open about policies, I'm requesting comments on
> the Core Team's draft contributor listing policy:
> 1) period for dropping people who have not been around is set to 2
> years. No explicit period was set before.
> 
> 2) non-code contributors now get listed in the "Contributors"
> section, but are not eligible for the "Major Developers" section.

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.

> This is a compromise between previous practice (not listing non-code
> contributors at all) and what some people would like to see ("Major
> Contributors" with non-code contributors); I figure we'll revisit
> this policy in a year or so.

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.

> 
> 3) this will require a member of the WWW team to add "year
> contributed" and "comments" non-displaying fields to the web tool we
> manage the contributor listings with.  How long would that take to
> add?
> 

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

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:27:27 -0800

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:57:25 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 

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

- --

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 12:11:57 -0700

Josh,

> contributor list is not under developers anymore. It's under community.

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.

> an army (users) is incorrect. Without one the other is pointless.

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.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:19:50 -0700

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 12:11:57 -0700
Josh Berkus <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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.

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

> 
> 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;

As I understand it, traditionally Robert handled that with Core
oversight. 

> 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 am not sure where you got this. I never suggested in anyway it was
the sole responsibility or discretion of the WWW team.

> > 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.
> 
> 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.

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.

> 
> 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.
> 

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

- --

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:59:07 -0400

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

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.

>> In fact, traditionally, contents of the developer

> As I understand it, traditionally Robert handled that with Core

I don't particularly know who made the webpage edits, but it's always
been core's determination who is or is not listed.

> basically unmaintained for over a year.

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

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 19:00:58 -0700

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:59:07 -0400
Tom Lane <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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.
> 

Agreed :)

> on some more widely-read mailing list.

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.

> been core's determination who is or is not listed.

O.k.

> 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.

Fair enough, I assume -hackers is not the place to have this
discussion. Should this be on -general? 

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:33:53 +0100

> As I understand it, traditionally Robert handled that with Core

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

> contributors that aren't listed, Stefan being one of the most glaring

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

> word publicly, neither has Dave, Jan, Marc, Tom, Bruce, Peter or the

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

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:33:06 -0700

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:33:53 +0100
Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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.

I am in no way suggesting that Josh was lying.

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:15:32 -0700

Magnus,

> team" if the discussion hadn't taken place.

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

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:32:31 -0700

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:15:32 -0700
Josh Berkus <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

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

- --

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:33:35 -0700

Josh,

> discussion. Should this be on -general? 

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

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:54:41 -0400

On Monday 10 March 2008 13:15, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > But I strongly doubt that Josh would claim to present the "view of the
> > core team" if the discussion hadn't taken place.
>

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. 

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

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:56:39 -0400

> since the last changes is a direct result of the slipped 8.3 schedule.

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.

---

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:40:34 +0000

>  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 :-)

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK Ltd: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk