public inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
PostgreSQL Contributor levels 31+ messages / 17 participants [nested] [flat]
* PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-15 17:30 Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 3 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Christoph Berg @ 2025-08-15 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-16 14:26 Adrian Klaver <[email protected]> parent: Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Adrian Klaver @ 2025-08-16 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-16 14:48 Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]> parent: Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 2 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Jimmy Angelakos @ 2025-08-16 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: [email protected]; Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]> 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 On 15 August 2025 18:30:23 BST, Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 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 > ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-16 17:11 David E. Wheeler <[email protected]> parent: Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: David E. Wheeler @ 2025-08-16 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]; Christoph Berg <[email protected]> On Aug 16, 2025, at 10:48, Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]> 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 Attachments: [application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (833B, 2-signature.asc) download ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-16 20:02 Laurenz Albe <[email protected]> parent: David E. Wheeler <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Laurenz Albe @ 2025-08-16 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David E. Wheeler <[email protected]>; Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]; Christoph Berg <[email protected]> On Sat, 2025-08-16 at 13:11 -0400, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Aug 16, 2025, at 10:48, Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-17 12:06 Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> parent: Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 2 siblings, 3 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2025-08-17 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]> 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. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-17 13:57 Tom Lane <[email protected]> parent: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> 2 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Tom Lane @ 2025-08-17 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>; +Cc: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]> Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-18 01:04 David Rowley <[email protected]> parent: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> 2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: David Rowley @ 2025-08-18 01:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>; +Cc: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]> On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 00:06, Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-18 01:10 David Rowley <[email protected]> parent: Tom Lane <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: David Rowley @ 2025-08-18 01:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>; Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]> On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 at 01:58, Tom Lane <[email protected]> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-19 16:43 Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> parent: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> 2 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Bruce Momjian @ 2025-08-19 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>; +Cc: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-19 17:31 Dave Cramer <[email protected]> parent: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Dave Cramer @ 2025-08-19 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>; Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]> On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 12:43, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-19 21:15 Adrian Klaver <[email protected]> parent: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Adrian Klaver @ 2025-08-19 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>; +Cc: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-08-19 21:54 Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> parent: Adrian Klaver <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Bruce Momjian @ 2025-08-19 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>; +Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>; Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-10 12:16 Christoph Berg <[email protected]> parent: Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 4 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Christoph Berg @ 2025-10-10 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> Re: Jimmy Angelakos > 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. Hi, sorry for the long silence here, it's been holiday and conferences and work travel here for too long. We liked the "Significant" idea very much and had almost already settled on it when a new one came up: Notable Contributor. The levels would then be: Major Contributor Notable Contributor Contributor (see the other subthread) How do people like that? Frankly, "Significant" was apparently not sticking in anyone's brain, we constantly had to look it up again because it was competing with the other S-words "Sustained" and "Substantial". (Though I guess that would work out if we actually chose it.) Christoph ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-10 12:26 Christoph Berg <[email protected]> parent: Tom Lane <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Christoph Berg @ 2025-10-10 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> Re: Tom Lane > Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> writes: > > 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. We are aware of that, and want to preserve that value. The details are not fleshed out yet, but it will be something like two pages. A new one "these people contributed to PostgreSQL in the last N releases/years" and the existing one which is then the "these are the people who work on keeping PostgreSQL alive" spotlight. > 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. Exactly, plus making the people from there a bit more visible. Plus the ability to combine with more data sources like conference organizers, translators, ... Christoph ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-10 12:29 Laurenz Albe <[email protected]> parent: Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 3 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Laurenz Albe @ 2025-10-10 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> On Fri, 2025-10-10 at 14:16 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > We liked the "Significant" idea very much and had almost already > settled on it when a new one came up: Notable Contributor. The levels > would then be: > > Major Contributor > Notable Contributor > Contributor (see the other subthread) > > How do people like that? I think that is fine. A little imp at the back of my head is suggesting "repeated offender" as an alternative. Yours, Laurenz Albe ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-10 12:34 Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]> parent: Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 3 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Jimmy Angelakos @ 2025-10-10 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> On 10/10/2025 13:16, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Jimmy Angelakos > >> 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. > > Hi, > > sorry for the long silence here, it's been holiday and conferences and > work travel here for too long. > > We liked the "Significant" idea very much and had almost already > settled on it when a new one came up: Notable Contributor. The levels > would then be: > > Major Contributor > Notable Contributor > Contributor (see the other subthread) > > How do people like that? > > Frankly, "Significant" was apparently not sticking in anyone's brain, > we constantly had to look it up again because it was competing with > the other S-words "Sustained" and "Substantial". (Though I guess that > would work out if we actually chose it.) > > Christoph Hi Christoph, It's not bad at all, but (at least in my head) it seems like there's not enough distance between "Notable" and plain "Contributor". For me, you can be notable for having once done something, it seems like it doesn't encompass the sense of sustained contribution as well as "Significant". I could be wrong. Best regards, Jimmy ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-10 12:37 Kai Wagner <[email protected]> parent: Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Kai Wagner @ 2025-10-10 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; +Cc: PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> Hi, maybe it's just me as a none native English speaker but Significant resonates the most with me and makes sense between Major and just contributor. Just my 2cents Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]> schrieb am Fr., 10. Okt. 2025, 14:35: > On 10/10/2025 13:16, Christoph Berg wrote: > > Re: Jimmy Angelakos > > 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. > > > Hi, > > sorry for the long silence here, it's been holiday and conferences and > work travel here for too long. > > We liked the "Significant" idea very much and had almost already > settled on it when a new one came up: Notable Contributor. The levels > would then be: > > Major Contributor > Notable Contributor > Contributor (see the other subthread) > > How do people like that? > > Frankly, "Significant" was apparently not sticking in anyone's brain, > we constantly had to look it up again because it was competing with > the other S-words "Sustained" and "Substantial". (Though I guess that > would work out if we actually chose it.) > > Christoph > > Hi Christoph, > > It's not bad at all, but (at least in my head) it seems like there's not > enough distance between "Notable" and plain "Contributor". > For me, you can be notable for having once done something, it seems like > it doesn't encompass the sense of sustained contribution as well as > "Significant". I could be wrong. > > Best regards, > Jimmy > ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-10 14:29 Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]> parent: Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 3 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Jonathan S. Katz @ 2025-10-10 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> On 10/10/25 8:16 AM, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Jimmy Angelakos >> 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. > > Hi, > > sorry for the long silence here, it's been holiday and conferences and > work travel here for too long. > > We liked the "Significant" idea very much and had almost already > settled on it when a new one came up: Notable Contributor. The levels > would then be: > > Major Contributor > Notable Contributor > Contributor (see the other subthread) > > How do people like that? > > Frankly, "Significant" was apparently not sticking in anyone's brain, > we constantly had to look it up again because it was competing with > the other S-words "Sustained" and "Substantial". (Though I guess that > would work out if we actually chose it.) First, thanks for working on this! It's very important, while also being easily bikesheddable :) And on that note... I wanted to try a different take on this that would help with the "middle" part more. As stated, the part is the challenge in finding the right word so someone can understand what comes between "Major" and not. But what if instead we add a next level that comes after "Major"? From what I've observed, many organizations have adopted "Distinguished" as the next tier (e.g. "Distinguished Engineer"), and that may help with understanding the progression from "Contributor" => "Major Contributor" => "Distinguished Contributor" as people would associate that "Distinguished" sounds like someone has had a sustained level of significant contributions for a long time. This may also help with the mental gymnastic of trying to figure out where something other than "Major" ranks. Anyway, I'm happy to be told to kick rocks on this, but the idea is to help reduce the mental gymnastics both folks in and around the community need to make to see how the word resonates :) Thanks, Jonathan Attachments: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP_signature.asc (840B, 2-OpenPGP_signature.asc) download ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-10 14:54 Christoph Berg <[email protected]> parent: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Christoph Berg @ 2025-10-10 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>; +Cc: Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; [email protected]; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> Re: Jonathan S. Katz > From what I've observed, many organizations have adopted "Distinguished" as > the next tier (e.g. "Distinguished Engineer"), and that may help with > understanding the progression from "Contributor" => "Major Contributor" => > "Distinguished Contributor" as people would associate that "Distinguished" > sounds like someone has had a sustained level of significant contributions > for a long time. I think this would make sense if we were starting from scratch, but now the community has had two (or more?) decades to remember that "major" means a lot. If we now "promoted" all existing contributors to "major" that would be very confusing. Christoph ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-10 17:42 Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]> parent: Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Jonathan S. Katz @ 2025-10-10 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; +Cc: Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; [email protected]; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> On 10/10/25 10:54 AM, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Jonathan S. Katz >> From what I've observed, many organizations have adopted "Distinguished" as >> the next tier (e.g. "Distinguished Engineer"), and that may help with >> understanding the progression from "Contributor" => "Major Contributor" => >> "Distinguished Contributor" as people would associate that "Distinguished" >> sounds like someone has had a sustained level of significant contributions >> for a long time. > > I think this would make sense if we were starting from scratch, but > now the community has had two (or more?) decades to remember that > "major" means a lot. If we now "promoted" all existing contributors to > "major" that would be very confusing. That's a fair point. That said, I'd weigh it against the confusion of the one-time action of promoting major contributors to "distinguished" vs. the confusion of parsing the difference between "major" vs. "significant"/"notable" or similar adjectives, where it's more challenging to understand the difference. Jonathan Attachments: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP_signature.asc (840B, 2-OpenPGP_signature.asc) download ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-10 17:51 Christoph Berg <[email protected]> parent: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Christoph Berg @ 2025-10-10 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>; +Cc: Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; [email protected]; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> Re: Jonathan S. Katz > That's a fair point. That said, I'd weigh it against the confusion of the > one-time action of promoting major contributors to "distinguished" vs. the > confusion of parsing the difference between "major" vs. > "significant"/"notable" or similar adjectives, where it's more challenging > to understand the difference. To fix that, we could rename Major to Distinguished and still go with Significant for level 2. But I don't quite see the need. Christoph ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-10 22:22 Robert Treat <[email protected]> parent: Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert Treat @ 2025-10-10 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; +Cc: Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>; Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; [email protected]; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 1:51 PM Christoph Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Re: Jonathan S. Katz > > That's a fair point. That said, I'd weigh it against the confusion of the > > one-time action of promoting major contributors to "distinguished" vs. the > > confusion of parsing the difference between "major" vs. > > "significant"/"notable" or similar adjectives, where it's more challenging > > to understand the difference. > > To fix that, we could rename Major to Distinguished and still go with > Significant for level 2. But I don't quite see the need. > To be honest, I don't think we "need" any of this, but there are some benefits that we might achieve by doing it (though I'd also say I'd love to see a prototype list of what this new 3rd tier would look like... it seems massive) In any case, a few upsides that would fall out of this would be less confusion between "contributors" from the release notes (I don't think this is much of a problem, but it's been suggested in this thread, and this would certainly reduce it since we wouldn't be using overlapping terms) and the term "distinguished" would better align with industry standards with regards to titles and career markers (which I'll admit, is not a direct issue for the community, but it does affect how corporations interact with the project, which isn't nothing give our size and maturity). Granted both of those things could be achieved without adding the 3rd tier. Robert Treat https://xzilla.net ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-11 09:17 Cornelia Biacsics <[email protected]> parent: Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 3 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Cornelia Biacsics @ 2025-10-11 09:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: [email protected]; +Cc: Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> Dear all, As part of the ongoing discussion on recognizing PostgreSQL contributors, I’d like to propose a structured framework that reflects both the field and the extent of contributions. And as Bruce already mentioned: PostgreSQL’s success depends on a broad range of contributors. It includes working on infrastructure, documentation, testing, events, and community growth and a lot more. I would first suggest defining fields of contributions (as you somehow already have listed here: https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/contributors/). And then define sub-levels of achievements (e.g. Bronze, Silver, Gold) based on the intensity or amount of contributions in this category. Recognizing contributors based on the nature and level of their work would ensure fair and meaningful appreciation across the ecosystem. Proposed Recognition Framework (examples ...) 1. Code Contributions Recognition per major version release (PG18 Code Contributor, PG19 Code Contributor,, ...) Categories by volume or impact (example): * Bronze: 1–4 commits or patches accepted * Silver: 5–14 commits or patches accepted * Gold: 15+ commits, or major feature lead / reviewer 2. Infrastructure and Operations Measured by active maintenance periods or completed initiatives. * Bronze: contributed to 1 project (e.g. CI job, website update) * Silver: ongoing work for 6+ months * Gold: long-term or leadership role in infrastructure operations 3. Documentation and Translation Based on number or size of contributions: * Bronze: 1–2 pages / translations / updates * Silver: 3–5 substantial updates or sections * Gold: primary authorship or large documentation refactor 4. Community and Events For conference organization, volunteer roles, or community moderation. * Bronze: contributed to 1 event * Silver: part of 2–3 events or continuous local engagement * Gold: lead organizer, multi-event coordination, or cross-region involvement 5. Marketing and Outreach Recognizing those who expand PostgreSQL’s visibility and reach. * Bronze: 1 campaign or article * Silver: 3+ campaigns, regular promotional efforts * Gold: sustained leadership or strategic impact in community visibility 6. Testing and Quality Assurance Based on frequency and impact of testing contributions. * Bronze: 1 round of participation (bug reports, test feedback) * Silver: regular testing over multiple versions * Gold: maintaining or coordinating test infrastructure / major QA lead Contributors can collect multiple badges across different categories, showcasing the breadth of their involvement and celebrating their growing impact within the PostgreSQL ecosystem. Which also adds a light gamification aspect to recognition, inspiring contributors to explore multiple areas of PostgreSQL — from code and testing to marketing, documentation, and community engagement. When it comes to displaying the level and type of contributions: we are anyway working on digital badges which could now reflect the different levels (bronze, silver, gold). Further, I’d like to bring another aspect into the discussion about contributor recognition — acknowledging company-level (commercial) contributions to PostgreSQL. Many companies make a significant impact by increasing PostgreSQL’s visibility and awareness, which ultimately helps the entire ecosystem thrive. Recognizing these efforts would highlight the essential role that commercial contributors play in supporting the community’s growth and sustainability. A possible framework would be the following (as an example) * Bronze Partner: consistent but limited contribution (e.g., 1–2 engineers involved or support for one community initiative) * Silver Partner: moderate involvement (e.g., multiple engineers, event sponsorships, or regular contributions in two categories) * Gold Partner: significant, ongoing contribution (e.g., sustained technical work + infrastructure or community sponsorship over multiple years). Kind regards, Cornelia Biacsics On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 10:50 AM Christoph Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > Re: Jimmy Angelakos > > 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. > > Hi, > > sorry for the long silence here, it's been holiday and conferences and > work travel here for too long. > > We liked the "Significant" idea very much and had almost already > settled on it when a new one came up: Notable Contributor. The levels > would then be: > > Major Contributor > Notable Contributor > Contributor (see the other subthread) > > How do people like that? > > Frankly, "Significant" was apparently not sticking in anyone's brain, > we constantly had to look it up again because it was competing with > the other S-words "Sustained" and "Substantial". (Though I guess that > would work out if we actually chose it.) > > Christoph > > > > > -- *E-Mail Disclaimer* Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail ist ausschliesslich fuer den bezeichneten Adressaten bestimmt. Wenn Sie nicht der vorgesehene Adressat dieser E-Mail oder dessen Vertreter sein sollten, so beachten Sie bitte, dass jede Form der Kenntnisnahme, Veroeffentlichung, Vervielfaeltigung oder Weitergabe des Inhalts dieser E-Mail unzulaessig ist. Wir bitten Sie, sich in diesem Fall mit dem Absender der E-Mail in Verbindung zu setzen. *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE & DISCLAIMER *This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure and solely for the use of the person(s) or entity to whom it is intended. If you have received this message in error and are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any use of this message is prohibited and may be unlawful, and you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-11 16:03 Melanie Plageman <[email protected]> parent: Cornelia Biacsics <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Melanie Plageman @ 2025-10-11 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Cornelia Biacsics <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]; Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> Thanks, Cornelia for thinking about this and taking the time to put together a proposal. The Contributors Committee is always happy to have people putting work into recognizing people in the community. On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 5:17 AM Cornelia Biacsics <[email protected]> wrote: > > As part of the ongoing discussion on recognizing PostgreSQL contributors, I’d like to propose a structured framework that reflects both the field and the extent of contributions. In my opinion, the issue with structured frameworks is that not everything fits in them and it makes it harder, not easier, to recognize different kinds of contributions. What about hosting a Postgres podcast or an educational youtube series? Is that considered marketing for the community? What if it is sponsored fully by your employer and includes some promotion of your employer (i.e. it isn't really a community podcast even though it is about Postgres)? That means the Contributors Committee has to discuss every badge before awarding it. Or take commits -- should someone with 4 typo patches accepted get recognized at the same level as someone who wrote 4 features or who identified 4 critical bugs? Who defines what a lead reviewer is? Or what about combinations of contributions? Aren't you a gold level contributor if you work at the Postgres booth at conferences, author 10 commits to every release for 10 years, volunteer on multiple organizing committees, and run a PUG? But you may not qualify as gold in any one category. And if we stick strictly to the definitions, what about contractors who are paid by the community to do legal work for over a year? Do they automatically qualify for Infrastructure and Operations badges? Or someone who is paid to design a logo for a community conference? We would have to make individual judgment calls on every one of these, which means we can't automate it, which means it will be woefully out of date if the Contributors Committee doesn't have one person working full time on this. > And as Bruce already mentioned: PostgreSQL’s success depends on a broad range of contributors. It includes working on infrastructure, documentation, testing, events, and community growth and a lot more. Absolutely. It is so important to recognize all types of contribution. > I would first suggest defining fields of contributions (as you somehow already have listed here: https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/contributors/). And then define sub-levels of achievements (e.g. Bronze, Silver, Gold) based on the intensity or amount of contributions in this category. > Recognizing contributors based on the nature and level of their work would ensure fair and meaningful appreciation across the ecosystem. I'm not sure if specifically recognizing and ranking people based on the nature of their work would ensure fair appreciation. I think there is a chance that slicing and dicing to this level emphasizes the difference of different types of contributions -- not their equal importance as part of a holistic whole. Though I think the difficulty of executing this kind of system is a bigger concern. That being said, I understand if some people want recognition of the area that they are active in. To that end, we are working on a feature similar to the idea of badges. > Contributors can collect multiple badges across different categories, showcasing the breadth of their involvement and celebrating their growing impact within the PostgreSQL ecosystem. Which also adds a light gamification aspect to recognition, inspiring contributors to explore multiple areas of PostgreSQL — from code and testing to marketing, documentation, and community engagement. The Contributors Committee agrees with this. We are currently working on a project for some kind of granular badges or tags like "PGConf EU 2026 Volunteer" or "Postgres 18 Code Contributor" that people can self-nominate and be approved for having on their contributor profile. We weren't imagining levels for each one, but more like specific tasks or roles people have had. We think you're right about the gamification and also recognizing people for contributing in multiple ways and inspiring them to get involved in more ways. We could definitely use help with this and anyone who is interested (especially interested in the www development component should email us). We haven't sent an email about it yet because the idea is still in the early stages. > Further, I’d like to bring another aspect into the discussion about contributor recognition — acknowledging company-level (commercial) contributions to PostgreSQL. > Many companies make a significant impact by increasing PostgreSQL’s visibility and awareness, which ultimately helps the entire ecosystem thrive. Recognizing these efforts would highlight the essential role that commercial contributors play in supporting the community’s growth and sustainability. If I'm understanding your idea, there is already a concept like this called "Sponsors" [1]. - Melanie [1] https://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors/ ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-11 16:08 Melanie Plageman <[email protected]> parent: Robert Treat <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Melanie Plageman @ 2025-10-11 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Treat <[email protected]>; +Cc: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]>; Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; [email protected]; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 6:22 PM Robert Treat <[email protected]> wrote: > > To be honest, I don't think we "need" any of this, but there are some > benefits that we might achieve by doing it I think it is easy if you are already recognized as a sustained contributor to say we don't need to recognize people who have made fewer or only recent contributions. I don't have a strong feeling about whether or not we should use "distinguished" instead of "major", but I do know that waiting 2-3 years to be recognized for contributing to the community is discouraging for people. And, as for code contributions, when people say who contributed to Postgres code, they don't think, hey let me go look at the release notes for all the previous major versions one at a time and find the acknowledgements section. > (though I'd also say I'd > love to see a prototype list of what this new 3rd tier would look > like... it seems massive) Well the third tier would be listed last, so if you don't scroll forever, you won't see it. We could also make it a separate linked page, we haven't looked into how options would look yet. - Melanie ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-11 18:06 Laurenz Albe <[email protected]> parent: Cornelia Biacsics <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Laurenz Albe @ 2025-10-11 18:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Cornelia Biacsics <[email protected]>; [email protected]; +Cc: Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> On Sat, 2025-10-11 at 11:17 +0200, Cornelia Biacsics wrote: > I would first suggest defining fields of contributions (as you somehow > already have listed here: https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/contributors/). > And then define sub-levels of achievements (e.g. Bronze, Silver, Gold) > based on the intensity or amount of contributions in this category. > Recognizing contributors based on the nature and level of their work > would ensure fair and meaningful appreciation across the ecosystem. That sounds complicated. Also, I am afraid that splitting up contributions in categories will do the opposite of what we want: people will think that code contributors are a better category than conference organizers. And I thought we don't want that. Ultimately, it is a value judgement who is a valuable contributor, and we shouldn't try to hide that behind formalisms. The process will always be some variant of "Hey, I think Cornelia should be on the list." - "I agree, let's put her on the list." Yours, Laurenz Albe ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-12 08:32 Cornelia Biacsics <[email protected]> parent: Melanie Plageman <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Cornelia Biacsics @ 2025-10-12 08:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Melanie Plageman <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> Hello Melanie, thanks a lot for taking the time to look at my proposal. Please find some comments below. On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 6:04 PM Melanie Plageman <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Cornelia for thinking about this and taking the time to put > together a proposal. The Contributors Committee is always happy to > have people putting work into recognizing people in the community. > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2025 at 5:17 AM Cornelia Biacsics > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > As part of the ongoing discussion on recognizing PostgreSQL > contributors, I’d like to propose a structured framework that reflects both > the field and the extent of contributions. > > In my opinion, the issue with structured frameworks is that not > everything fits in them and it makes it harder, not easier, to > recognize different kinds of contributions. > What about hosting a Postgres podcast or an educational youtube > series? Is that considered marketing for the community? What if it is > sponsored fully by your employer and includes some promotion of your > employer (i.e. it isn't really a community podcast even though it is > about Postgres)? That means the Contributors Committee has to discuss > every badge before awarding it. > Absolutely — new things will come up as new possibilities arise. This list is subject to change over time, and I’m sure it is possible to cover many of the existing contributions on it. (my list contained examples) > Or take commits -- should someone with 4 typo patches accepted get > recognized at the same level as someone who wrote 4 features or who > identified 4 critical bugs? Who defines what a lead reviewer is? > Probably not (not my field of expertise), but this is also subject to evaluation or calculation criterias. > Or what about combinations of contributions? Aren't you a gold level > contributor if you work at the Postgres booth at conferences, author > 10 commits to every release for 10 years, volunteer on multiple > organizing committees, and run a PUG? But you may not qualify as gold > in any one category. > In this case, I’d say you’d receive a Gold Code Contributor badge, and a second one (Ambassador badge or whatever name it will receive), level is based on the number of individual contributions in this category. This way, contributors can earn badges across different categories. > > And if we stick strictly to the definitions, what about contractors > who are paid by the community to do legal work for over a year? Do > they automatically qualify for Infrastructure and Operations badges? > Or someone who is paid to design a logo for a community conference? > > Are they currently listed as contributors? Then I’d say yes. But you’re absolutely right — the rules need to be defined. Probably quite similar to how you handle this at the moment. > We would have to make individual judgment calls on every one of these, > which means we can't automate it, which means it will be woefully out > of date if the Contributors Committee doesn't have one person working > full time on this. > > I’ve recently seen a program for continuous personal development to maintain a certain status — and yes, in that case you have to submit proof through a system. I agree, it’s a bit of an overhead, and it probably depends on how far you really want to go with recognizing and developing the contributor program. > And as Bruce already mentioned: PostgreSQL’s success depends on a broad > range of contributors. It includes working on infrastructure, > documentation, testing, events, and community growth and a lot more. > > Absolutely. It is so important to recognize all types of contribution. > > > I would first suggest defining fields of contributions (as you somehow > already have listed here: > https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/contributors/). And then define > sub-levels of achievements (e.g. Bronze, Silver, Gold) based on the > intensity or amount of contributions in this category. > > Recognizing contributors based on the nature and level of their work > would ensure fair and meaningful appreciation across the ecosystem. > > I'm not sure if specifically recognizing and ranking people based on > the nature of their work would ensure fair appreciation. I think there > is a chance that slicing and dicing to this level emphasizes the > difference of different types of contributions -- not their equal > importance as part of a holistic whole. Though I think the difficulty > of executing this kind of system is a bigger concern. > > That being said, I understand if some people want recognition of the > area that they are active in. To that end, we are working on a feature > similar to the idea of badges. It would at least make the different types of contributions more visible and tangible, in my opinion. > > Contributors can collect multiple badges across different categories, > showcasing the breadth of their involvement and celebrating their growing > impact within the PostgreSQL ecosystem. Which also adds a light > gamification aspect to recognition, inspiring contributors to explore > multiple areas of PostgreSQL — from code and testing to marketing, > documentation, and community engagement. > > The Contributors Committee agrees with this. We are currently working > on a project for some kind of granular badges or tags like "PGConf EU > 2026 Volunteer" or "Postgres 18 Code Contributor" that people can > self-nominate and be approved for having on their contributor profile. > We weren't imagining levels for each one, but more like specific tasks > or roles people have had. We think you're right about the gamification > and also recognizing people for contributing in multiple ways and > inspiring them to get involved in more ways. > > We could definitely use help with this and anyone who is interested > (especially interested in the www development component should email > us). We haven't sent an email about it yet because the idea is still > in the early stages. > Thank you. > > > Further, I’d like to bring another aspect into the discussion about > contributor recognition — acknowledging company-level (commercial) > contributions to PostgreSQL. > > Many companies make a significant impact by increasing PostgreSQL’s > visibility and awareness, which ultimately helps the entire ecosystem > thrive. Recognizing these efforts would highlight the essential role that > commercial contributors play in supporting the community’s growth and > sustainability. > > If I'm understanding your idea, there is already a concept like this > called "Sponsors" [1]. > > Oh! Thanks for that! > - Melanie > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/about/sponsors/ Overall, thank you very much for your reply. I’d be happy to discuss the details further with you and offer any additional help. Best wishes Cornelia -- *E-Mail Disclaimer* Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail ist ausschliesslich fuer den bezeichneten Adressaten bestimmt. Wenn Sie nicht der vorgesehene Adressat dieser E-Mail oder dessen Vertreter sein sollten, so beachten Sie bitte, dass jede Form der Kenntnisnahme, Veroeffentlichung, Vervielfaeltigung oder Weitergabe des Inhalts dieser E-Mail unzulaessig ist. Wir bitten Sie, sich in diesem Fall mit dem Absender der E-Mail in Verbindung zu setzen. *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE & DISCLAIMER *This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure and solely for the use of the person(s) or entity to whom it is intended. If you have received this message in error and are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any use of this message is prohibited and may be unlawful, and you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-16 23:36 Corey Huinker <[email protected]> parent: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Corey Huinker @ 2025-10-16 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>; +Cc: Cornelia Biacsics <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> > > > That sounds complicated. > > Also, I am afraid that splitting up contributions in categories will > do the opposite of what we want: people will think that code contributors > are a better category than conference organizers. And I thought we don't > want that. > > Ultimately, it is a value judgement who is a valuable contributor, and > we shouldn't try to hide that behind formalisms. The process will always > be some variant of "Hey, I think Cornelia should be on the list." - > "I agree, let's put her on the list." > > +1 I recall a few years ago there was a debate about one contributor being moved from Major Contributor to regular Contributor. Adding new levels will ultimately create more such debates, and we will need to be ready for that. I like Cornelia's categories. Reading through them I recognize that I and many others would be fully invested in the token economy (aka "gold star economy") created therein. The badge proposal described by Melanie would create similar investment on my part. It also has the advantage that badges can be created on-the-fly to recognize achievements that otherwise defy classification. But having either such thing would pressure the community to categorize and quantify every unit of work put into it, and then defend those quantities and categorizations when someone feels slighted by their ranking. My fear is that the new burden will fall on people who are already contributing greatly, and thus would be contributing less, and the new contributions won't make up for that loss. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-17 20:25 Christoph Berg <[email protected]> parent: Kai Wagner <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Christoph Berg @ 2025-10-17 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kai Wagner <[email protected]>; +Cc: PostgreSQL WWW <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> Re: Kai Wagner > Hi, > > maybe it's just me as a none native English speaker but Significant > resonates the most with me and makes sense between Major and just > contributor. Thanks everyone for the input. In the meantime I had also run a poll in the PostgreSQL social channel, and there as well, Significant won. So, the team has decided to go with * Major Contributor * Significant Contributor The plans for the 3rd level are becoming more and more concrete. (As said before, we will make sure that the existing 2 levels are clearly separated from that big pool.) Christoph ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels @ 2025-10-18 10:11 Hannu Krosing <[email protected]> parent: Corey Huinker <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Hannu Krosing @ 2025-10-18 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Corey Huinker <[email protected]>; +Cc: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>; Cornelia Biacsics <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>; Christoph Berg <[email protected]>; PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:36 AM Corey Huinker <[email protected]> wrote: > I recall a few years ago there was a debate about one contributor being moved from Major Contributor to regular Contributor. Adding new levels will ultimately create more such debates, and we will need to be ready for that. And I guess in some cases such contributors would rather be known as "Former Major Contributor" :) And let's also remind ourselves of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law - "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 31+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-10-18 10:11 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 31+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2025-08-15 17:30 PostgreSQL Contributor levels Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 2025-08-16 14:26 ` Adrian Klaver <[email protected]> 2025-08-16 14:48 ` Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]> 2025-08-16 17:11 ` David E. Wheeler <[email protected]> 2025-08-16 20:02 ` Laurenz Albe <[email protected]> 2025-10-10 12:16 ` Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 2025-10-10 12:29 ` Laurenz Albe <[email protected]> 2025-10-10 12:34 ` Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]> 2025-10-10 12:37 ` Kai Wagner <[email protected]> 2025-10-17 20:25 ` Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 2025-10-10 14:29 ` Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]> 2025-10-10 14:54 ` Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 2025-10-10 17:42 ` Jonathan S. Katz <[email protected]> 2025-10-10 17:51 ` Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 2025-10-10 22:22 ` Robert Treat <[email protected]> 2025-10-11 16:08 ` Melanie Plageman <[email protected]> 2025-10-11 09:17 ` Cornelia Biacsics <[email protected]> 2025-10-11 16:03 ` Melanie Plageman <[email protected]> 2025-10-12 08:32 ` Cornelia Biacsics <[email protected]> 2025-10-11 18:06 ` Laurenz Albe <[email protected]> 2025-10-16 23:36 ` Corey Huinker <[email protected]> 2025-10-18 10:11 ` Hannu Krosing <[email protected]> 2025-08-17 12:06 ` Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> 2025-08-17 13:57 ` Tom Lane <[email protected]> 2025-08-18 01:10 ` David Rowley <[email protected]> 2025-10-10 12:26 ` Christoph Berg <[email protected]> 2025-08-18 01:04 ` David Rowley <[email protected]> 2025-08-19 16:43 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2025-08-19 17:31 ` Dave Cramer <[email protected]> 2025-08-19 21:15 ` Adrian Klaver <[email protected]> 2025-08-19 21:54 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox