| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Cornelia Biacsics <cornelia(dot)biacsics(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-www(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Jimmy Angelakos <vyruss(at)hellug(dot)gr>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Contributors <contributors(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels |
| Date: | 2025-10-11 18:06:31 |
| Message-ID: | a651de89b5747747cb0dc795793a280091d72386.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Cornelia Biacsics | 2025-10-12 08:32:06 | Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2025-10-11 16:08:40 | Re: PostgreSQL Contributor levels |