public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Cornelia Biacsics <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Jimmy Angelakos <[email protected]>
Cc: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Contributors <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 11:17:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CALaz2ZsLQLbw6Pv714DyO8rTJfLF=nhC0BmHV4OhsurkrhLVKg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[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.
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels
In-Reply-To: <CALaz2ZsLQLbw6Pv714DyO8rTJfLF=nhC0BmHV4OhsurkrhLVKg@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox