Open Stack

On 2016-03-03 10:41:45 -0800 (-0800), Stefano Maffulli wrote:
[...]
> Missing from this list are people who contribute translations. Those are
> valuable contributions too. In the past we couldn't get the list of
> translators because of limitations in the tool we used... but now we
> have them:
[...]

They've been getting the same complimentary 100% discounts on
registration as code contributors for a few cycles through addition
to the extra-ATC list for the I18N team, though as of very recently
we have an API in the new translation platform they're using from
which we can integrate queries to automate this (the API is still
evolving from what I hear but I'm planning to work on supporting it
in our tooling in the coming months).

> I suggest not to create a separate category, and reuse ATC. Active
> Technical Contributor always meant to include any contribution of
> technical nature, including legal, operations, documentation, user
> stories, etc. Creating a new name risks TLA proliferation (it's a
> thing) and exacerbate the "us vs them" that already exists. ATCs
> would already know that they are operators, doc writers, UX
> experts, marketers, translators, developers, laywers etc and all
> have their own venues to meet and discuss among their peers.

I agree that we should use a common contributor term for all of
them (inclusivity is important and we're all one community), but I
actually disagree with our current use of "ATC" for this at all
because it's a term defined in the foundation bylaws and, while the
people who have "ATC" on their badges and get free conference
admission are a _subset_ of the ATC definition in the bylaws, who
gets free admission is decided by the conference coordinators on an
event-by-event basis and often does not extend to _all_ official
ATCs (for example, people with contributions in the prior cycle but
not the current cycle are officially ATC but don't get free
admission for that).
-- 
Jeremy Stanley