Re: Melanie Plageman
> 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?
Since the email is user-editable, and separate from the account email,
people could just leave that field empty. We just need to update the
description so they know when editing their profile. Same for all the
other fields)
> 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.
We seem to have started using "Recognized Contributors" in the team,
even if we didn't ever consciously decide about it.
> > 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?
That button looks a bit odd at the moment. Perhaps having it is
appropriate, but it should be much less prominent so the page looks
good when people show it around.
> 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.
Maybe we could actually base our decisions on that...
> 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?
Perhaps passive moderation is good enough, i.e. things get put live
automatically, but we can review the notifications and kick anything
bad.
Christoph
