Follow
Don Watkins
@donwatkins@fosstodon.org
Let me start by stating that I think there's nothing wrong with being a“non-code open source contributor” or with being proud about it. But, that said, let's face the facts: software, no matter how you look at it, is about code. Your documentation, your logos, your translations, your evangelism or whatever you do may be awesome, but if the codebase is shit or it's unmaintained, your work doesn't matter _at all_.
You're not the star in this movie, so don't try to act like you are.
Why I’m proud to be a non-code open source contributor and you should be too https://opensource.net/non-code-open-source-contributions/
@josemanuel I get where you're coming from, and I agree about the "star" part... to a point.
However, if the docs are so bad that people can't easily see what it does or how to use it, the quality of your code doesn't matter at all.
If your offering is cloud-based but the infrastructure is unreliable, the code doesn't matter at all.
If your evangelism is so bad nobody even tries your software (that'd be me) then your code doesn't matter at all.
Lastly, I've seen what happens when you call your developers rockstars, and it's not good.
The codebase might be the core of the thing, but ultimately it's only one of the crucial elements. In an ensemble production, it doesn't make sense to argue over who the star is.
So let them shine.