On 26 May 2014, at 23:17 , Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > Note that the doc I link to does explicitly say we welcome > contributions to design. It's listed under the Project section, as > branding and design. Again, the problem is that there are simply too > many ways to contribute. > > On 26 May 2014 23:01, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I hadn't heard the acronym previously, and a quick web search doesn't turn >> up any other uses of it. Still, the list of "what we value," just like the >> list of "we don't discriminate against these things" should be >> ever-expanding. I am not opposed to spinning this lit out and instead saying >> something like: > > Then let's drop it and come up with something very generic about how > we value any sort of positive contribution. > >> "We value contributions that include, but are not limited to: community, >> project, documentation, code, visual design, internationalisation, ..." and >> then link to the contributor guide as a full resource. > > The problem here is that the list is too long. > > Here's an example: > > We value contributions, such as moderating discussions, recruiting new > contributors, organising events, providing user support (via the > mailing list or third-party support forums), helping with ticket > triage, product management, preparing or testing releases, quality > assurance, marketing, promotion, branding, design, documentation, > translation, writing cookbooks and tutorials, blogging, helping with > the wiki, giving talks, doing screencasts, interviewing people, > running meetings, contributing code, performing code reviews, helping > with tests, helping with continuous integration, working on CouchDB > tools and libraries, and packaging for third-party distros. > > This is too much. Heh. And it might look like I'm being pedantic, but > I actually spent an hour or more reformatting a list like this, trying > to group it and make it manageable, and in the end I just gave up. > > The problem is, we're basically listing every task and every job that > might conceivably be involved in shipping a product. Which is a very > long list and I have surely missed things. Like, uh, community > management! > > And I don't know how to cut it down without just shortening it to the > COPDOC list. I.e. "We value contributions to the community, project, > documentation, and code." And then we just punt this ever-increasing > list of stuff to a new doc, as I have done. > > (I'm not attached to the COPDOC acronym itself. I just thought it was > a neat concept.)
Nothing wrong with the meta-list of areas and a link to the specific things, I’d just say that design is top-level important and worth mentioning in the bylaws :)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
