Re: proposal: add "packagers" field (list of strings (names)) to package definition

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

>> Aww, too bad. I think it's a missed opportunity to be inclusive and
>> generous with attribution which might motivate people to contribute.
>> Guix is in a unique position with this opportunity.
>
> If there are other ways we can recognize people's work, we should
> consider them :)  Think of it this way though, a packager is a person
> who packages.  The value is in the verb, not the noun; packaging is an
> ongoing process.  We should reward the process, via NEWS, and perhaps in
> other ways.

With every release the release announcement also includes a list of
contributors since the last release next to a number of their
contributions.  I think that this is a very public statement of
appreciation and quite motivating (because of the numbers, so you can
even be competitive if you want to).

I don’t think package objects are good places to attribute contributors
(all of them?) to a package.  They are usually invisible to users

> Besides, no one wants to be the person that removes a name from a list
> of a package's packagers!

+1 to this.  It would be so awkward.  And not removing names from
packages may result in a really long list, eventually, and removing the
names then would be no less awkward.

~~ Ricardo