8000 Acknowledgments addition in Vision.bs by mgendler · Pull Request #278 · w3c/AB-public · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

Conversation

mgendler
Copy link
@mgendler mgendler commented Jul 23, 2025

Adding extended acknowledgements in alignment with discussion in #277


Preview | Diff

Adding extended acknowledgements
@mgendler mgendler requested review from tantek and koalie July 23, 2025 08:41
@frivoal
Copy link
Contributor
frivoal commented Jul 23, 2025

Looks like a good start, and adds several names I thought had been missing. Hopefully no-one feels left out.

I'd also suggest sorting the names by alphabetical order. Any other order invites speculation as to why it is ordered that way (chronological? importance? random?).

Also, from a practical standpoint, I'd suggest putting one name per line in the source code. Rendering will not be any different, but maintainability would be simplified: it'll be easier to sort the list, it'll be easier to make commits or PRs (or suggestions in a PR) that just insert one name without introducing conflicts if someone else is proposing another addition…

@chrisn
Copy link
Member
chrisn commented Jul 23, 2025

I'd also recommend an alphabetical listing, for the same reasons as Florian.

@mgendler
Copy link
Author

Made changes to align with Florian's suggestions.

@tantek tantek requested a review from cwilso July 23, 2025 20:03
Copy link
Contributor
@tantek tantek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In a quick review of merged PRs into the Vision, and non-trivial Issues that resulted in additions or non-trivial changes to the Vision, I was able to spot three more names (not listing them here for now) that are missing, while some of these names I was unable to see any actual contribution in PRs or non-trivial Issues. For all the reasons given, if we're adding a bunch of names of new folks here, we should have at least an editors/chairs doc of citations so we know we have done a reasonably thorough job.

@reidmore-online
Copy link

@tantek considering your involvement with this, you’re clearly positioned to correct any missing names here, can you please update the list with those that are missing instead of referring to them obliquely? As for keeping track of whose participation and when, I haven’t seen that kind of practice anywhere else, obviously we don’t have the benefit of a neat WG participants list, but it is possible for us to find out who created/commented on issues and participated in meetings or threads.

@tantek
Copy link
Contributor
tantek commented Jul 28, 2025

After much work reviewing PRs, Issues, and comments, the editors have (in PR #280) removed "notably" (which would have been inaccurate for this long a list of people), and replaced it with an editors thanking and recognition of the key contributors to the origins of the Vision document, AB members who explicitly supported the Vision work, and individuals who gave specific feedback (PRs, issues, non-trivial comments) which resulted in improvements in the Vision.
The list in this PR both left out several individuals who were either AB members who supported the Vision work or individuals who gave specific feedback that improved the Vision, or included individuals who only made comments (typically trivial or referential/FYI) which did not impact this document. Both of those have been corrected in #280.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants
0