Re: Public contributor profile pages - Mailing list pgsql-www

Thanks for taking a look! A few follow-up questions before I edit the patch:

On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 9:03 AM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
> AFAICS with this patch, *every* user who visits their profile gets a Contributor object created. And they do that
evenif they don't save their profile? And the contributions part of the profile shows up for all users, whether they
arecontributors at all or not -- not just "all levels of contributors". That doesn't seem right, surely only those who
arerecognized at *some* level should be getting that, and the change is to list all levels, but not random
non-contributors?(And even if it's shown for non-contributors intentionally, we shouldn't create a database record for
peoplejust viewing things) 

What we are envisioning once we add "Contribution Badges" (or whatever
we call them) is that anybody who is approved for a badge (e.g.
volunteered at PGConf EU) would have that badge listed on their
profile. These may or may not be considered "Recognized Contributors",
and we aren't sure whether or not their names will be listed on the
Contributors Profile page or another page or not linked to a main pgo
page at all. But either way, it makes sense for these profiles to be
publicly viewable since they were awarded to the person.

Since we don't have the badges yet, we are considering the text of the
"Contribution" field to be the equivalent. So anyone that lists
"Contribution"s should have a publicly accessible profile. It isn't
approved by a moderator like badges would be, which does make it more
fraught, though.

The reason I thought every user profile should have a Contributor
object is that 1) it seemed easier from an implementation standpoint
than creating one only once someone has edited the contribution fields
of the form 2) most of the use cases for a pgo account seem related to
contributing (signing up for mailing lists, etc) -- I don't know if
they are used for other things like downloading postgres binaries etc.

Is there a good way to avoid making the Contributor object unless they
edit the "Contributions" field? Maybe there should be some kind of way
of saying "I contribute to Postgres" and "Contributions" is a required
field and then that makes the Contributor object and also kicks the
profile to some moderation queue for the Contributors team?

> Also, when making changes to a model that only changes fields that aren't actually in the database (such as the
changeof help_text), instead of making a migration for that it's better to "backpatch" it into the latest existing
migration.Otherwise we just collect a lot of no-op migrations that over time will start costing time and annoyance. 

The latest existing migration that includes that field or just the
latest existing migration?

> As for the questions - I think we should absolutely do opt-in, and I do think it makes sense to auto-opt-in the
currentmajor contributors since "it's been like that forever and they haven't complained", but listing the others and
ina more visible way there are sure to be some who might not want it. In particular, maybe we should make the listing
of*email* a separate opt-in/opt-out? That is you can opt-out of being listed completely, or you can say "list me, but
notmy email"? 

So there would be a separate opt-in for being listed on the recognized
contributor page and for having a public individual contributor
profile? And we would only auto opt-in major contributors to the
public individual contributor profiles?

And email display would be separately opt-in and if you opt-in it
displays on both the individual contributor profile page and on the
main recognized contributor profile page for major contributors and we
would auto opt-in email display for major contributors?

> I've thought a bit about it and I do think listing the profiles with the username in the URL as you have done is in
theend good. I don't think people would care about exposing that one -- and it's already exposed on for example the
commitfestapp. But based on that I would go with "does not show at all if they don't have an account". They won't be
ableto edit any information on it anyway, and if they care enough to do that they will create an account. We will
presumablycontinue to list them in the list of contributors, just not provide a details page. 

That makes sense. Maybe we should start calling the Contributor
Profiles page [1] the Recognized Contributors page or Sustained
Contributors page instead of the Contributor Profiles page to
disambiguate it from individual contributor profiles. If only to make
spec'ing out this feature easier.

> I wonder if we really need a separate "report inappropriate profile"? We should be getting notifications for them,
butin particular if we are seriously worried about this case, we should make the records moderated. But these are known
contributors- I think we can trust them? 

I think we want people who are not recognized significant or major
contributors to be able to have profiles so that they can build them
up and eventually make the case for being a recognized significant or
major contributor. This would significantly increase the number of
people with profiles so moderation may get tricky.

What does it mean that we would get notifications for them? Is "we"
the contributors committee?

I would be okay with having them moderated if we thought the volume
would be like one a day (with more at the beginning). And maybe if it
is more, we could add another community member outside the
contributors committee to help moderate.

- Melanie

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/