You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Let's consider adding a 'contributor' field in addition to the original author(s) to encourage smaller maintenance/updates and give credit to those who made contributions to some targeted aspects but not quite at the level of an author. This approach has been adopted by Pythia, for instance.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Good point! For the specific case of an example, I'd reflexively read "contributor" as being synonymous with "original author" -- the person who contributed the example. That's not what's meant here, just someone who contributes to the example. It would be more clear if it says "Other contributor(s)" to signify being in contrast to "authors", though that's wordy. I think "Editor" is also a bit odd; sounds like either a copyeditor or a scientific article editor, neither of which likely applies here. And "Maintainer" to me implies an ongoing role that also doesn't necessarily apply. So I don't love any of those three words to indicate "someone who changed these files in some way not amounting to authorship", but I don't have any better suggestion and I do like the idea of being able to distinguish, so I'm happy with whatever!
Let's consider adding a 'contributor' field in addition to the original author(s) to encourage smaller maintenance/updates and give credit to those who made contributions to some targeted aspects but not quite at the level of an author. This approach has been adopted by Pythia, for instance.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: