Conversation
Automated Review URLs |
335f741 to
e117246
Compare
|
maybe a way forward would be
Eventually one could order by contributions to that particular spec version or some other kind of optimization. Currently it seems like it is ordered by |
|
@lubianat thanks for the feedback. One can do Which constructs the cff file from the myst.yaml. The CI just would need to make sure to also commit the built file 🤔 As for authorship I thinkthe issue with contrib is that this doesn't reflect contributions to the rfc process. In the case of rfc5, a bunch of people deserve acknowledgement, but the main contributor of the respective PR is just me ^^"
Not sure who can decide this, though. |
|
I agree, it is complex. Though the version 0.6 is different from RFC 5, so one has to consider how to balance previous contributions to the spec and the contributions to a particular version. I think that using the size of total contributions is what was done in 0.5 (https://zenodo.org/records/14755796). It may make sense to keep the simpler/straightforward heuristic for the 0.6 time frame and perhaps organize it better for 1.0. The OME meeting seems like a good moment to make these kinds of tweaks. |
Good idea 👍 It *is an ome repository after all so it seems fitting for the OME body to make this kind of decisions. |
|
Error in build: File "/home/docs/checkouts/readthedocs.org/user_builds/ngff-spec/checkouts/31/pre_build.py", line 175, in render_authors_md (other than that, looks ok) |
|
@joshmoore looks better now :) |
|
Nice! TIL |
|
@bogovicj @LucaMarconato @d-v-b @will-moore @thewtex @toloudis @fcollmann @dyf @jburel @jrswedlow @ilan-gold @jbms @dstansby @sbesson @chris-allan @clbarnes @tcompa @LDeakin @imagejan @glyg @xgui3783 @yarikoptic @matthewh-ebi @JulianHn @minnerbe @mkitti @tlambert03 @melissalinkert @ziw-liu @jluethi @jni @bugraoezdemir @giovp @constantinpape @perlman @sebi06 @normanrz @virginiascarlett @dpshepherd @tischi @vuhlmann @melonora @ivirshup @AlanMWatson @jwindhager @kevinyamauchi @yuriyzubov @dzenanz I am adding you explicitly as authors here, so that your contributions are acknowledged and citable on Zenodo with the next big release that goes out. I managed to find most your orcids/github accounts, but please do check briefly whether I put your details into the list correctly. Note: I am avoiding affiliations here, as they should be sufficiently clear from orcid records ;) Thanks! edit: The |
dzenanz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My orcid is 0000-0002-9546-9703.
|
My ORCID: 0000-0003-0632-8296 |
|
name: Douglas Shepherd Thanks! |
|
Hey, I am not complaining about a mention obviously, but my contribution to this repo was merely a fix to a small website bug, so I am not really sure if I should really appear as an author regarding the ngff spec. Just wanted to actively mention this and let you know that you can feel free to remove me from the author list! Thanks for all the effort you put into this |
|
@jo-mueller Can we also add @lorenzocerrone (RFC-8 co-author, so I think that qualifies under the proposed author guidelines)? |
Co-authored-by: Ziwen Liu <67518483+ziw-liu@users.noreply.github.com>


Fixes ome/ngff#315
Acknowledgement
Authors and Contributors to the ngff specification should be acknowledged for their contributions, as pointed out in ome/ngff#315. At the 2025 NGFF Hackathon in Zürich, it was suggested to use the following list as a criterion for inclusion as an author:
Authorship order
Right now, authorship for the next release is divided in two categories:
A future update to this "policy" may expand eligibility for authorship to contributions to the broader community, such as
all of which are valid and helpful, but the criteria need to be fleshed out in more clarity before adding this.