| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Jimmy Angelakos <vyruss(at)hellug(dot)gr>, pgsql-www(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL Contributors <contributors(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels |
| Date: | 2025-10-10 17:42:11 |
| Message-ID: | 5e9c001f-7732-42eb-8cc2-1a26af842800@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2025-10-10 17:51:33 | Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels |
| Previous Message | Christoph Berg | 2025-10-10 14:54:33 | Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels |