* Andrew Dunstan (andrew@dunslane.net) wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net
> > <mailto:sfrost@snowman.net>> wrote:
> > > contributors.postgresql.org/sfrost
> > <http://contributors.postgresql.org/sfrost>
> > > - Recent commits
> > > - Recent commit mentions
> > > - Recent emails to any list
> > > - Recent commitfest app activity
> > > - Recent wiki page updates
>
> Frankly, this coin is going to become so debased as to be worthless.
We could manage that. I certainly feel like a lot *more* folks should
be acknowledged than we do today, if the feeling is that the commit
message acknowledgments are insufficient. Would it be possible to
articulate the criteria which would be sufficient for inclusion, to
avoid having it be debased?
> From a specific desire to acknowledge reviewers for their work we
> are now getting to a list that you can get on by posting to any
> mailing list.
I was thinking it'd take a bit more than that- perhaps regular emails
and you have to ask for it? Or you have to have been mentioned in the
commit history somewhere?
Perhaps not obvious but implied was a requirement to have a community
account.
> Please, can we stick to what was the original point. This tendency
> we have to enlarge proposals way beyond their origin is why getting
> things done is often so difficult.
I agree with your concern that this could turn into a large effort which
would derail the main discussion, but the above question is a good one-
how do we avoid debaseing the value of inclusion in anything like this
(or in the release notes..) while still providing the recognition and
credit that the individuals who are helping to make PG the great system
it is deserve?
Thanks!
Stephen
