Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels

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 <vyruss(at)hellug(dot)gr> 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
>