Names and definitions of people -- standardize language in metrics

[GeorgLink]

While defining metrics, we use a variety of different names including: people, members, contributors, authors, submitters, reviewers, observers, developers, committers, maintainers, and users.

I think it would be great to have a definition of each and make sure we use them consistently across all CHAOSS metrics -- ergo I think this a task for the Common WG.

Most relevant metrics:

• Contributors
• Types of Contributions

[GeorgLink]

Here is how Cauldron defines some of these:

• People: I don’t remember having this concept in Cauldron, but I think it may refer to the set of all the other concepts you’ve named.
• Submitters: They are those people who have contributed to a project by opening an issue or a PR / MR.
• Authors: They are those people who have contributed to a project generating commits.
• Maintainers: It is the name we used to give to what is currently known as Submitters (reviews).
• Contributors: It is the name that we used to give to what is currently known as Authors.
• Users: It is the name we used to give to what is now known Attendees (Meetup).
• Observers: It is the name we used to give to what is currently known as Submitters (issues).

Source: https://community.cauldron.io/t/what-are-submitters-authors-maintainers-contributors-users-and-observers/122/2?u=georglink

[geekygirldawn]

Need to better understand overlap and duplication with the handbook: https://handbook.chaoss.community/community-handbook/about/terminology/chaoss-committees

Should these really be metrics that we link to that contain the definitions? Rather than trying to maintain a separate glossary.

[GeorgLink]

I am okay with both options of either (a) defining the terms through a glossary or (b) creating a metric for each. Metrics are more work to create.

A glossary could live in the handbook and then be included in all metric releases..

[ElizabethN]

Just a point of note, we have had feedback from newcomers that some of our own internal terms are also confusing ("working group", for example) so maybe a glossary would still be helpful.