Add contributors to AUTHORS

[rmartin16]

Should we add contributors to the AUTHORS file? Or should we just get rid of it?

Quick one-liner to update AUTHORS file:

sed -i '9,$d' AUTHORS && git shortlog --summary --numbered | grep -iEv 'dependabot|Brutus \(robot\)' | awk 'NR>1 {$1=""; print "   "$0}' >> AUTHORS

PR Checklist:

• All new features have been tested
• All new features have been documented
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md file
• I will abide by the code of conduct

[freakboy3742]

Thanks for getting this discussion started.

I have absolutely no problem with crediting anyone who has contributed to any BeeWare project. I'm 100% in favor of anything that improves the way we surface the efforts of contributors.

I don't think removing the AUTHORS file is a good option. It's enough of a social convention that we should have something here. I completely agree that the current file isn't well worded, though.

In terms of this specific implementation, I have some concerns:

1. Keeping the list up to date, and in the process making our contribution process more complex by adding an "add your name to the contributor file". We have enough issues getting people to add a changenote file.
2. While this is all based on public information from the GitHub log, I'm wary about auto-adding an easily visible manifestation. Some people may not want the credit; others may want the credit under a different name (e.g., deadnaming trans folk, people who use pseudonyms that don't match their GitHub login); and in some cases, people have multiple entries (I noticed Ellie Graves/elliegraves; I'm betting there are others).
3. Ordering. AFAICT, this is based on number of commits; however, there are people high on this list because they took 5 commits to get the spelling right on a variable name; others regularly rebase and squash multi-file contributions. Ordering by number of commits also undermines the "all commits are valued" narrative. If we're going down this list, I'd rather see alphabetical ordering (with the added benefit that this is an easier ordering to keep accurate over time).
4. It misses (and undervalues) non-code contributions. Someone who spends their evenings in the Discord room telling people to run briefcase update -r won't get any credit on this list.

Whatever the outcome of the discussion on the specific form: I think you (plus Malcolm and Dan) qualify as primary maintainers at this point :-) Going by people who have commit access, Sagi, Sam, Asheesh and Katie should be on that list too. However, we should confirm with each of them that they're comfortable with being added to a primary maintainers list before adding them in that capacity.

[rmartin16]

I agree with these points and expected them as they are germane.

While this is all based on public information from the GitHub log, I'm wary about auto-adding an easily visible manifestation.

I agree with this....but it may be worth pointing out that GitHub already provides a prominent link to such a list via contributors on the repo's landing page.

What about these next steps?

• I'll create a PR pinging the primary maintainers requesting a thumbs up if they wish to be included
• Add a step to the PR checklist to add yourself to the AUTHORS file if you wish
• Commit count is a poor proxy for relative participation....I'd fine with alphabetical...or first come, first serve

[freakboy3742]

What about these next steps?

• I'll create a PR pinging the primary maintainers requesting a thumbs up if they wish to be included
• Add a step to the PR checklist to add yourself to the AUTHORS file if you wish
• Commit count is a poor proxy for relative participation....I'd fine with alphabetical...or first come, first serve

That sounds like a plan to me.