Ingo Weinhold wrote: > I would simply split the developers group into three sections: "current > maintainers" (everyone with commit access who's not is the second group), > "past maintainers" (everyone who has or had commit access, but hasn't > been active for x months/y years (or since the previous release)), "code > contributors" (people who sent patches). An analogous grouping could be > done for the non-development-related contributors. All groups would be > ordered alphabetically by last name (as it was). When trying to implement this, I found it is too complicated. The absolute majority of contributions are direct or indirect patches (indirect for example when someones codes was integrated by some maintainer). Very few people have contributed in other ways (like many bug reports or creating icons). Therefor I found the following to work quite well: Current Maintainers: ... Past Maintainers: ... Website, Marketing & Documentation: ... Contributors: ... This way the lists are giving the information who is currently maintaining Haiku (code *and* website, marketing etc). And past maintainers are given a more appropriate mention. Everyone who has contributed in some way, but never became consistent enough to become a maintainer with more access rights (either website or SVN) is mentioned as a Contributor. One problem I see with this is that some people provide consistent help with bug reports, like Diver, John Drinkwater, Scott, Andreas Färber and some more. There could be a separate list for them to honor the consistency with which they help the project. What do you guys think about a separate "QA" list? Any other input? Best regards, -Stephan