Credits Page Should Include more than 'just' people who commit a patch

[Ipstenu]

If you want to find how contributes to core, it's easy, but everyone else is unlisted.

Right now, unless the person who commits a patch remembers to 'props', the person who submits a ticket, or leads to a great discussion that drives the code to a solution in the comments, are never mentioned. This drives a wedge between coders and non-coders, as some people can help but they just may not be super coders.

Proposals:

1) When pulling a list of 'everyone who helped' for the credits page, also pull a list of all IDs who commented in the tickets that were commited and list as 'Also Contributed...'

2) In 'Recent Rockstars' (which is a manually culled list anyway), pull in the active awesome people in support, documentation, codex, manuals, training, and WordCamps (for example). Include people in UI who contribute screenshots/design/wireframes that drive changes.

People who contributed to this ticket:

• ryanimel
• saracannon
• brandondove
• theandystratton
• tomwillmot
• SiobhanP (aka raggedrobins)
• ryan duff
• Lisa Sabin-Wilson
• js_zao
• vegageek
• andrea_r
• ipstenu

If I got your logins wrong, sorry.

[DrewAPicture]

I've definitely noticed the "props" imbalance between coding and non-coding contributors, though I'm not sure about giving "credit" to everyone commenting on a ticket either. Not every comment is constructive or even helpful (something I myself am guilty of on occasion).

I think something like "Also Contributed" is a good step forward, but there should probably be a better overall consensus on what constitutes "a contribution" in relation to the various contributor groups. My 2¢

[alexvorn2]

what is the affect of having your id in the credits page (list)?

[Ipstenu]

Replying to alexvorn2:

what is the affect of having your id in the credits page (list)?

Recognition. Right now, WordPress only directly recognizes people who wrote the code that went into core, however that is by no means the only way core grows. People who make wireframes, or gather information to make bug reports (or encourage others to do so) are helping WP remain a healthy community, and by in large, any non-code contribution to core is ignored. Which makes people feel undervalued and not respected, which drives them away.

This came up as a topic in the Summit this weekend, and my action item was to make a ticket for it :)

[SergeyBiryukov]

Somewhat related: #17917

[tw2113]

+1 on this thought.

It'd take a little bit more time to vet out who to include and definitely not as automated as querying for props on tickets, but there is definitely a lot more to contributing to WordPress than just code/code patches.

[alexvorn2]

so we can mark this as closed? because I never submit a patch but my name is on the credits page because I submitted some tickets :D

[markoheijnen]

We can't. Both times you did mentioned what the fix should be in the ticket and because of that you did got the props in the commit message.

[helenyhou]

That's also not at all what this ticket is about. It's about those who contributed in ways beyond Trac and core code. Props have been inclusive of graphic design, UI/UX, and even suggestions as of late, so I think that piece is less of an issue.

We talked about this in person, and don't think we ever came back to this ticket. To me, a credits page in the software itself is, by nature, software credits, and thus is driven by code and design contributions to the core software. I also think it would be rather inaccurate to put support, documentation, codex, manuals, training, and WordCamp people in a cycle-related list, as their contributions have little or nothing to do with the development cycle and often span far beyond one. Certainly recognition is deserved, but perhaps relying on adding to something that exists and isn't as public as those activities is a little bit of a false start.

Problem first, solution second. :)

[brandondove]

Replying to helenyhou:

To me, a credits page in the software itself is, by nature, software credits, and thus is driven by code and design contributions to the core software.

From the discussion we had at the summit that this ticket spawned from, it was mentioned that the recent rockstars section was hand curated. If someone writes 400 pages of documentation in one of the handbooks, writes a field guide post, or leads the development cycle in a non-developer role, why wouldn't they be part of that list? Also, I feel like limiting an official credits page to code contributions will perpetuate the problem that exists today. Fixing a one character typo in code is not greater than writing a field guide post. The problem is that we're not giving props to folks who put in tons of non-code related hours to further the project. One of the ideas that came up in our discussion was to create additional sections for documentation contributors, WordCamps, etc.

[helenyhou]

Replying to brandondove:

If someone writes 400 pages of documentation in one of the handbooks

I would argue that that is not cycle-related and shouldn't be pigeon-holed off that way.

writes a field guide post, or leads the development cycle in a non-developer role, why wouldn't they be part of that list?

Who says they wouldn't? I think they would be included (and I'm speaking as a person who was involved in the final culling of the selection for 3.5, just to be clear), but the Recent Rockstars list is quite long enough at six, especially given that one should only appear there once. It's good to encourage folks to keep working harder to get there, and it would similarly be unfair to bump a code contributor off the list just because you want to be inclusive without objectively considering the impact of the contribution(s).

I think my point is that we are pointing at an existing page that is inherently software- (which in this situation is ever-so-slightly different from the project at large) and cycle-oriented and wondering why we aren't just shoving in non-cycle-related contributions. I think that's an awkward approach - at the very least, consider something else. Wouldn't being on the About page on .org be better exposure and more accurate, since it's about the project as a whole? What other options are there? What's the real problem? Is it one of perception, one of encouragement, or both? I don't think anybody would argue against recognition; it's just a matter of the why and where would best serve the why.

The problem is that we're not giving props to folks who put in tons of non-code related hours to further the project.

As I tried to say above, I don't think this is an accurate assessment at all. There are props going to those who do design, UI/UX, wireframes, and even idea suggestion. I'm sure it hasn't always been this liberal, but it is now, and that's what's important. In fact, I've actually seen *negative* reactions from multiple parties for being included in the credits list for what they consider to be "insignificant" contributions. No contribution is insignificant, whether it's writing docs, helping in the forums, or changing one character in a patch. However, the recognition for those contributions can be in different ways.

As an example, in #18141 a patch was provided by the reporter, but never used in any way, not even for subsequent patches, but the reporter did get props for the initial idea and patch. I personally have some props where it's probably not even visible why I would be included, but my time was put into serious review/revision/discussion of the final solution whose code was written by somebody else. In fact, most of my time spent on the WordPress project is not spent writing code at all, but doing all the other unglamorous stuff like leading chats, writing meeting summaries, gardening tickets, testing patches, breaking things, and yes, writing field guides. I was in that Rockstar list because I was participating in discussions and writing patches, but I'd say I made it past that that point because of everything else I decided to do. Yes, I write code too, but implying that people on the credits screen *only* wrote code is similarly demeaning.

[SergeyBiryukov]

Related: #23348

[chriscct7]

I think the solution here, is to (hopefully accurately paraphrase Helen) to just become better at making sure that those who contributed to a particular ticket get accurate props on it. On a design issue involving a designer who makes the design and a developer who puts the code in both should get props for their work. At the end of the day, becoming better at propsing will solve this issue. Closing as invalid only because that seems like the closest reason

[brandondove]

Replying to chriscct7:

I think the solution here, is to (hopefully accurately paraphrase Helen) to just become better at making sure that those who contributed to a particular ticket get accurate props on it. On a design issue involving a designer who makes the design and a developer who puts the code in both should get props for their work. At the end of the day, becoming better at propsing will solve this issue. Closing as invalid only because that seems like the closest reason

I think the initial issue here goes beyond code/design contributions. Things like event planning, support forums, wordpress.tv, documentation, etc. That being said, I'm not sure there's a solution to that issue, because as @helenyhou pointed out, these things aren't development cycle based and they probably don't belong on the credits page in the software itself. This is probably a better ticket to pursue on the Meta trac.

[chriscct7]

I agree. I think something that perhaps the project could consider, and I think would be cool, is some sort of credits/people who contribute to WordPress (the project not necessarily just the software) page on wp.org or something along those lines, but that would be better discussed on a meta trac issue.