I'll have a think on this and come up with some new proposed text to review. Thanks!
On 26 May 2014 23:34, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 :) > > -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
