Docs: restructure contributing guide and add community cards

[ishan372or]

Description

What is this PR

• Bug fix
• Addition of a new feature
• Other

Why is this PR needed?
This PR addresses issue #664. The previous contributing guidelines lacked explicit instructions on the "fork and pull request" workflow, which could be confusing for first-time contributors. Additionally, the Community documentation page was a simple list of links, which could be improved for better navigation and user experience.

What does this PR do?

• Restructures CONTRIBUTING.md:
  - Added a "Quickstart" guide for experienced developers.
  - Moved the "Forking the repository" instructions to a dedicated section at the top.
  - Clarified the Pull Request workflow, specifically distinguishing between pushing to a user's fork (origin) and syncing with the main repo (upstream).

• Updates Community Docs:
  -Converted the list of links in docs/source/community/index.md into a responsive card layout (Grid) using sphinx-design to match the style of the User Guide.

    -Reordered the cards to prioritize "Mission & Scope" and "How to Contribute" for new visitors.
  

References

fixes #664

How has this PR been tested?

I have built the documentation locally using sphinx-build and verified that.

Is this a breaking change?

No.

Does this PR require an update to the documentation?

Yes, this PR is exclusively an update to the documentation.

Checklist:

• The code has been tested locally
• Tests have been added to cover all new functionality
• The documentation has been updated to reflect any changes
• The code has been formatted with pre-commit

[niksirbi]

Thanks for opening the PR, @ishan372or !

Just a heads-up that the current CI failures are unrelated to your changes. You can fix them by fetching updates from the main branch. You can either:

• merge the current main branch into your PR branch, or
• rebase your branch onto main.

Once that’s done, the CI should pass again (or fail for reasons related to your PR).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (e6420e9) to head (8041971).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #764   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           34        34           
  Lines         2111      2111           
=========================================
  Hits          2111      2111           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[ishan372or]

@niksirbi , The sphinx linkcheck error is caused by an external link https://www.iso.org/standard/29237.html in docs/source/blog/displacement-vectors.md which is unrelated and untouched by my changes.
Would it be acceptable to add this URL to linkcheck_ignore?

[niksirbi]

@ishan372or you are right about it being unrelated. I just checked that link and it seems that particular standard has been withdrawn and replaced with https://www.iso.org/standard/82075.html. Let's try this new link, and if that also returns a 403 error, you may add it to the linkcheck_ignore. Many domains have started to block AI scrapers, and that often affects linkcheck as a side effect.

[niksirbi]

Hey @ishan372or, this is in the right direction, but will need more work (see my comments below for detailed instructions).

• Added a "Quickstart" guide for experienced developers.

This seems to be missing. Anyhow, I think that's of secondary priority, and can be also added later. For now please focus on addressing my comments.

[ishan372or]

@niksirbi, Thanks for the detailed review. Will start making changes based on suggestions and push commits as i go.

[niksirbi]

Thanks @ishan372or. Please make sure to merge the latest changes from main first, because we just made a few changes to the contributing file, see #774

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[ishan372or]

@niksirbi The CI failure appears unrelated to this PR. The tests fail due to a timeout while downloading sample data from gin.g-node.org during pytest_sessionstart, resulting in a ConnectTimeoutError. Could you please take a look