> On 24 Jan 2015, at 06:09, YoheY - OpenOffice <openoff...@yohey.hu> wrote: > > >> My first concern with your sketch is the degree of complexity. I just have >> to think more about it. > It just seems to be complex. One list contains everything. The environment > decide which records to show up from it. > >> >> My second concern is the criterion for being considered a contributor and >> thus eligible for inclusion in the list. I'd say committership is a good >> criterion, or is it too strict? > > I guess if this kind of list would be used, some kind of rank could express > the level or weight of contribution. /patcher, developer, tester, committer, > have good ideas, etc./ > I think we all agree that avoiding complexity is a good goal. But here's another chord to add to the polyphon. What kind of mechanisms do you suppose could be used here, in the credits, to encourage more substantive engagement? Or even to retain what's already been committed? For instance, local meet ups might work, as could the integration with a social media site. "Integration" here does not mean, necessarily, anything more than just cross linking. :-)
Basically, my desire is to recognise contributions & contributors and then to encourage more and more of the kind. Many tactics can work and do work; it depends on person, context, even code. One can even gamify (eg, use a layered approach, where the "reward" is stepping up the meritocratic ladder—which is what is done, anyway, only without the title. The difference, I suppose, made by calling it a game would lie in the setting of goals—without, at the same time, sacrificing the real logic of open source, which is that trust and public respect are earned through contributions, especially those others appreciate—by using them.) cheers, louis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: l10n-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: l10n-h...@openoffice.apache.org
