Why not just stick a big list of all contributors in there for now, and work towards crediting per page?
Seems like a sensible balance between overall fairness and overall work; why expend huge effort on the credits section when there is plenty of other stuff to be getting on with. I don't think any kind of filtering on the list of committers will lead to satisfactory results without someone to audit everything ever done by everyone (just MHO), so I see it as a maintainance task with no real benefits compared to listing all people (you already have the list). --Wez. On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:47:54 +0000, Gabor Hojtsy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wez, Dave, Philip, and others, > > The idea behind generating an author list to start with was to get > somewhere forward in the process. As I have said I have provided a list > for discussion. And as I have also said, - apart from two people - the > current "top list" contains names I think the community recognize and > see their contributions as valuable ones. I have also said the list is > open for additions, so "the number mark" was just some guiding piece to > start the discussion, it is actually not some hard stuff I would like to > stick to. > > Sure it would be nicer to credit people by section. BUT to make that > possible, we need to start collecting per section credit names and need > to fill in holes in the system (credit previous work). This is obviously > more work then we are currently able to handle, given that we have > enough stuff with the install part, oop5 section and stuff. We would > also need to have our rendering systems adopted to such a crediting > scheme. DSSSL, XSLT and livedocs all need more work on them to support > this as far as I see, since we use all of these methods currently > (DSSSL, XSLT), or we are going to use them (livedocs) in the future. > > The current situation (years old list of currently inactive authors, and > no credit for current hard workers) is not something that should be > kept. The ideal situation is not something we have volunteers to do. Now > what can we choose? An intermediate solution. This is what I have > offered. I have presented a list for discussion. Now I think it is a lot > easier to produce a list which is much better then the current situation > and will fit (with continual review) until someone volunteers to build > the base for the more fair solution we decided to use on the long run. > > Or do you think it is better to stick to a conceptually better solution > which noone seems to volunteer to build in a reasonble timeframe? Is it > better to direct any people to work on such a supporting system instead > of directing them to fix docbugs or to work on the oop5 section, or > elsewhere? > > Goba >
