MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <aJ9ur1eSnk5pp9aD@msg.df7cb.de>
 <190A13D4-022B-4323-B30D-027B0D931DAF@hellug.gr>
 <aOj5NNxXdghSX66R@msg.df7cb.de>
 <CALaz2ZsLQLbw6Pv714DyO8rTJfLF=nhC0BmHV4OhsurkrhLVKg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALaz2ZsLQLbw6Pv714DyO8rTJfLF=nhC0BmHV4OhsurkrhLVKg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 12:03:56 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAAKRu_ZZsJVYdjvhPVSBQiB+oV7yy-fC7Hno6JgVFJ43utOpXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels
To: Cornelia Biacsics <cornelia.biacsics@cybertec.at>
Cc: pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org, Jimmy Angelakos <vyruss@hellug.gr>,
	Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>,
	PostgreSQL Contributors <contributors@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAKRu_ZZsJVYdjvhPVSBQiB%2BoV7yy-fC7Hno6JgVFJ43utOpXw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

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=E2=80=AFAM Cornelia Biacsics
<cornelia.biacsics@cybertec.at> wrote:
>
> As part of the ongoing discussion on recognizing PostgreSQL contributors,=
 I=E2=80=99d 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=E2=80=99s success depends on a=
 broad range of contributors. It includes working on infrastructure, docume=
ntation, 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 al=
ready have listed here: https://www.postgresql.org/about/policies/contribut=
ors/). And then define sub-levels of achievements (e.g. Bronze, Silver, Gol=
d) based on the intensity or amount of contributions in this category.
> Recognizing contributors based on the nature and level of their work woul=
d 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, sho=
wcasing the breadth of their involvement and celebrating their growing impa=
ct within the PostgreSQL ecosystem. Which also adds a light gamification as=
pect to recognition, inspiring contributors to explore multiple areas of Po=
stgreSQL =E2=80=94 from code and testing to marketing, documentation, and c=
ommunity 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=E2=80=99d like to bring another aspect into the discussion abo=
ut contributor recognition =E2=80=94 acknowledging company-level (commercia=
l) contributions to PostgreSQL.
> Many companies make a significant impact by increasing PostgreSQL=E2=80=
=99s visibility and awareness, which ultimately helps the entire ecosystem =
thrive. Recognizing these efforts would highlight the essential role that c=
ommercial contributors play in supporting the community=E2=80=99s growth an=
d 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/