Provide Epiverse author, contributor and review actions

[joshwlambert]

I believe that a new subsection on the Authorship and contribution acknowledgements page that gives a list of actions that warrant addition to a package DESCRIPTION is useful to get consistent and fair attribution across the project.

For example:

• Adding a new feature via a PR that gets merges warrants authorship
• Filing a (legitimate) bug report on an issue warrants contributor status, independent of whether the bug is fixed by the bug reporter or package developer/maintainer
• Having a discussion with a someone that helps define a feature and how it should be implemented should be listed as a contributor
• Reviewing a package on a full package review PR warrants reviewer status.

These are all examples, not necessarily suggestions for the list. At the moment I think there is a bit too much subjectivity in defining the roles for each package, and potentially those that are least likely to come forward and ask for recognition will be worst off.

It can be made clear in the text that this is for Epiverse developers, but may help other teams, but is not meant as general guidance across the community (here I use "community" to mean anyone that is using blueprints as guiding principles).

I'm also aware that if these things get codified it opens it up to be gamed, whereby people only do the minimum amount to attain roles, but to be honest I don't see this as a major issue and it would be good to promote collaboration.

[joshwlambert]

It's also worth bearing in mind that the attribution actions should be scalable. In an ideal world where there is lots of community contribution, if we want to avoid having many tens, or even hundreds, of authors, contributors and reviewers in packages, it should be considered when deciding the listed items.

Browsing through some tidyverse R packages it looks like standards for qualifying as a contributor and reviewer are quite high (i.e. they are somewhat rare).