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@hellug.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.
