Add a promotional and third-party content policy to CONTRIBUTING - #2796
Add a promotional and third-party content policy to CONTRIBUTING#2796ElliotFriend wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
Solicitation PRs (payment addresses, donation appeals, and marketing copy for a contributor's own project) recur often enough to be worth a written standard. Documenting it gives reviewers something to cite, and gives legitimate ecosystem listings a clear path through an issue first. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Adds a repository policy for promotional and third-party contributions.
Changes:
- Adds the policy and contributor process.
- Adds the matching table-of-contents entry.
Recommendation: MERGE-READY — correct and complete.
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
|
@JFWooten4 would also be interested in hearing your thoughts? |
|
Preview is available here: |
|
I was wondering why the spam was taking so long to process. I like putting it in the policy doc for a few reasons. The first is that it's much easier to automate this going forward with the concepts ironed in here. More essentially, it is a much cleaner dispute and close process with a clear The nonobvious pro I see revolves around third-party tools. Descriptive references are great because they allow for ongoing and growing citations to competitors. Relevant to #2621 from the SDF, which should act as any other entity submitting a request to the docs. I'd be careful with the now-common request to open an issue before proposal. I've seen process override purpose in the SCF, and I'd want to see this rule lean accepting over default rejection over form. If FOSS counts, then #2679's tooling (introduced within the context of #657) would fail this test, and other changes like #1145 (comment) are so simple that a preparatory issue for a list addition basically is a PR. I don't think a PR adding a link like that would not be merged anyway when bona fide, but I really want to harp on this because decentralization and permissionlessness lose all hold with bureaucratic uptake. |
|
@JFWooten4 you bring up a good point about the issue-first language in this change. i've attempted to soften that a bit, and suggest an issue-first strategy might be more appropriate if a contributor needs help finding the right location or listing page for their project. i've been trying to adopt and promote an issue-first strategy in situations where "major" changes (i know, that's a bit of fuzzy wording) are being proposed. partly to save contributors time/effort of going through the motions of changing code, creating a PR, etc. only to realize after some effort on their part that the direction they're going doesn't quite fit. |
|
Preview is available here: |
What
Adds a
Promotional and third-party contentsubsection under Content Conventions inCONTRIBUTING.md, along with its table of contents entry. Two bullets, no other changes.Why
We get a steady trickle of PRs that add payment addresses, donation appeals, referral links, or marketing copy for the contributor's own project. Each one currently gets handled ad hoc, which means re-explaining the same standard every time and leaving the decision looking like a personal judgment call rather than a repo policy.
Writing it down does two things:
The second bullet matters as much as the first. There are open PRs right now proposing third-party tooling in good faith, and pointing at a process beats improvising a decision.
Notes
CONTRIBUTING.mdsits outside thecheck:mdxglob ({docs,src/pages,meetings}), so the prettier hook doesn't cover it. It does have pre-existing formatting warnings under the repo prettier config. I left those alone to keep this diff scoped to the one change.🤖 Generated with Claude Code