Add all contributor specification and render in library detail page

[mattrosno]

PM

• [ ] PI implications

Design

• [ ] Redline

Dev

• [ ] Determine and document how our system consistently uses All Contributors
• [ ] Read all contributors content per library
• [ ] Render contributor table in the library detail page
• [ ] Initiate PRs to all indexed libraries to consistently attribute contributors

[mattrosno]

We're blocked in two different ways at the moment:

1. What are the PI implications of listing all contributors on Carbon's website?
2. The All Contributors CLI/bot works at the repo level. We actually want that at the library level (especially as we consolidate more into Carbon's monorepo) and also at the individual asset level. That doesn't seem possible with All Contributors. Is there a better way to do this?

[mattrosno]

For (2) above, you can configure types:

Specify custom symbols or link templates for contribution types. Can override the documented types.

We could add custom types per library and asset using their ids like library:carbon-styles, library:carbon-react, asset:tree-view to attribute maintainers on a per-library and per-asset basis.

[jeanservaas]

@mattrosno what's the status here... I'm going to update the the library detail pages to make sure they align with what we've done with the asset detail pages here: https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon-platform/issues/589

I will also add library slack channels like we have on the asset detail overview tab... but what's happening with the maintainers/contributors piece? I see you have a design spec listed above, but we already had a design speced out, unless the content is changing?

[mattrosno]

@jeanservaas the status:

1. I wanted to use the industry-standard "all contributors" to specify contributors and maintainers. We use that in the majority of Carbon's repos currently. We've identified two shortcomings where a) it tracks contribution at the repo level and not per subdirectory (per library), and b) it doesn't have the ability to specify contributions per asset either. If we can't use the industry-accepted way to do this, our options become "hardcoding" names in markdown, or adding ability to specify this through the schema. Both have high risk of becoming stale over time.
2. I recall outstanding questions if we even want to list individual names on a per-asset basis, or instead, if we wanted to guide users to support channels so the community can be set up to support by not encouraging DM questions.

Let's figure out our point of view on (2). And let's get support channels dialed in for v1. And then we figure out listing contributors later (could be deferred post-v1).

[mattrosno]

Confirmed with @jeanservaas and @kingtraceyj - no need to list individual maintainers on a per-asset basis because we want to guide our community to ask questions through official channels (Slack, Discord, GitHub Discussions) instead of asking maintainers directly.

[mattrosno]

Deferring this to post-v1.