Let me rephrase: I take exception to the adjective "inactive". It minimizes my efforts to bridge the gap between development and documentation.
Excuse me, but I don't undestand what you mean here.
I'll put it bluntly then: If I'm seen as inactive, then perhaps I should just live up to that reputation.
Once again, please excuse me, but being a foreign English speaker, I am not much proficient in allusions and politics when written in English. Does your the 'live up' statement means that *you are not* going to be active in the future as you are not regarded being active for the past half year, or does that mean *you are* going to be active to get onto the list (as Philip done so :)
The list of active authors contains authors active in the *past half year*, not the *next half year*, so if someone is not listed there, it does not mean he is not going to be.
Just pick an example, like Hartmut, who has been in here for a damn long time, authored quite some docs and done a tremendous amount of editing. Yet he is not listed on the frontpage, since he has not been active around here in the past months, and therefore does not fit into the active role. This does not mean that his contributions have not been valuable. In fact if he would not have been around here, the manual would be far behind. This however does not mean that he is active. These are two separate things.
The list of 'currently not that active' people was not meant to put those to shame, but rather to value their contributions done in the past, regardless that they are not able to contribute that much amount of work daily done by those listed on the frontpage currently. *All* the lists are kind of 'toplists' done by contribution *amount* currently, since we found no way to make lists based on contribution *value*.
Do you think that it is a shame to be on the 'currently not active' list?
Goba
