That’s how I felt too, so that’s why I think this discussion is great thank you.
About bridging the gap and meeting halfway between technical and non-technical.
There’s some interesting points about that in the talk.
For example as he calls it, finding a user-side champion (confuses a bit with what I have in mind for the champions term, so maybe should find another word). But the point being, someone who plans to be a user of whatever you’re building from the technical side, and will put in the effort to represent the user side. To coordinate with them, and even get them to sign off on it when the work is done.
This may be a little more difficult in an open-source project than when people on both sides are on payroll, but still sounds like a good practice to me.
Something interesting you and @decentralion seem to have in mind first is that “champion” is a person’s status based on their behavior.
I’m gravitating more towards looking at that behavior per unit of work to decide who “championed” it. So it isn’t a scale of how much of a champion a person is, but was this work championed and by who?
If you think about the life cycle to develop a large feature:
- Find out who cares about it and how important it is
- Describe even better
- Put it on the roadmap and commit to it
- Do work
- Get feedback
- Do more work
- Final touches
- Post-release care
- Answer questions
There’s a lot that goes into the process. All too often that process falls onto a project maintainer, even if people are helping with the implementation. I would argue if someone just shows up to program (steps 6-8) and the maintainer does everything else around process and keeping the community informed, the maintainer championed it and delegated implementation work.
Conversely, if a contributor shows up to do all of this, I think it wouldn’t matter if the implementation was done by multiple people or if they delegated it and didn’t program at all. They championed it.
So I think one important aspect is, overseeing the process.
Why I believe it makes sense to do this per unit-of-work is that it’s a lot easier to agree on. The reputation of a person, I feel like should be what their cred score represents. So if we can agree who was the champion of some work, they can get extra cred from this. Repeating that will give you legendary scores.