[proposal] Change the number of new Distinguished Contributors to 5 each year (down from 10) #275
Conversation
We had more spot than candidates for a few years, this is in my opinion problematic. Among other, - It decreases the recognition of the award - It forces us to change voting procedure I'm open to decrease to less than 5, but I think this is a first step. Note that I suggested this a couple of time, but was told this was too close to next elections, as this time the election are just finished, I hope this is early enough.
|
FYI at least the past 3 years did not reach 10 Distinguished Contributors. |
|
Personally I think it's reasonable to shrink the number of new seats each year. If I remember, the first year we chose 10 because there was a large backlog of people that were likely deserving, and we didn't want to spend all of our time going through that backlog. I'd be fine capping this to 2-3 personally, but 5 is reasonable too. |
choldgraf
changed the title
|
Something that would concern me with shrinking this down is that it might become difficult to compare contributors to different projects for which the scope of a distinguished contribution may differ (e.g. between Jupyter Book and Jupyter Lab). I would like to avoid under representing one of our communities as a consequence of this change. Does this make sense? |
I feel like right now we are on the other end of the spectrum. I would suggest limiting things like proposed for next year, and if this is a huge concern after the next election, we can iterate and adjust. |
|
This is some of the reasons I choose 5, I tend to have the feeling that 3 would be good, but I don't want to be over restrictive. Let's note also that if we have many good contributors one year and few the year after, this can help to spread the recognition through time, so I don't see any reason to not have an informal "those people did not make the cut this year and have a 'boost' for next" |
|
Pinging the @jupyter/executive-council and @jupyter/software-steering-council for a vote |
|
Pinging @gabalafou, @agoose77, @JohanMabille, @vidartf, @SylvainCorlay, @minrk, @martinRenou, @rpwagner, who haven't voted or abstained. |
|
Thanks for the ping, missed the call the first time around. |
We had more spot than candidates for a few years,
this is in my opinion problematic.
Among other,
I'm open to decrease to less than 5, but I think
this is a first step.
Note that I suggested this a couple of time, but was told this was too close to next elections, as this time the election are just finished, I hope this is early enough.
I'm unsure if this is EC and/or SSC:
Executive Council Votes
@afshin
@jasongrout
@choldgraf
@Ruv7
@Zsailer
@rpwagner
Software Steering Council votes
DEI Standing Committee: Martha Cryan @marthacryan
Jupyter Accessibility: Gabriel Fouasnon @gabalafou
Jupyter Book: Angus Hollands @agoose77
Jupyter Foundations and Standards: Paul Ivanov @ivanov
Jupyter Frontends: Mike Krassowski @krassowski
Jupyter Kernels: Johan Mabille @JohanMabille
Jupyter Security: (currently vacant?)
Jupyter Server: Vidar Fauske @vidartf
Jupyter Widgets: Sylvain Corlay @SylvainCorlay
JupyterHub and Binder: Min Ragan-Kelley @minrk
Voilà: Martin Renou @martinRenou