-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
Acknowledgments addition in Vision.bs #278
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Adding extended acknowledgements
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… |
I'd also recommend an alphabetical listing, for the same reasons as Florian. |
Made changes to align with Florian's suggestions. |
There was a problem hiding this 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.
@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. |
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. |
Adding extended acknowledgements in alignment with discussion in #277
Preview | Diff