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
