What information is necessary for badge creation?





The skill badges are missing the rubrics
How do I specify the rubric if the only requirement is to commit something to github?
The rubric could exort in some way to takle tickets that will have a greater inpact on the usability of the site, or more complex changes. How complete is the fix, or the implementation of the new feature are things we could look into. maybe we should exort them to provide a link to a pull request (it contains a lot more info that just the final commit) as well and they can leave a couple of words about what they learned while contributing to the project or how what they did was similar to what others provided.

If it is just yes or not to having a commit then I will recommend to use a submission enabled community badges for it because you don't really need more than one people to verify that that the link is valid and it could make sense to award the badge more than once if the user keeps contributing (even more important if the badge is extended out of the scope of contributing to lernanta)

I agree that the badge maybe needs to be harder to get. A mere commit to the code shouldn't suffice. See the updated rubric. I don't think we need to be too critical of the actual contribution, as long as it contributed a needed feature or fixed an existing bug it should be good enough.

I am still a little uncertain about the rubric for the translator badge, I don't think that currently it is fair compared to the open source badge? Do we need to quantify the size of the translation (translated at least 10 phrases / 25 words) or the number of language/grammar fixes?

Though it may seem easy to translate it isn't so simple. Some phrases which are really common in english do not have a direct translation to other languages. You also need to take into account not be too verbose with the translations or you will end up needing a lot of customizations to the css. In some cases it is neccesary to research the terms used in other websites for specific actions so you are using terminology that will be clear to the user. If the translator does not has a programming background (in principle the basic knowledge they have is the domain of english and another language) things like %(username)s as part of the strings to translate will result confusing (when receiving a translation I can actually get compilation errors when running 'make int' to generate the django.mo files). We provide documentation to help them: https://github.com/p2pu/lernanta/wiki/Translating-Lernanta and I usually take care of advanced steps like setting up the localization of jquery's datepicker or ckeditor, and a custom css style file for the language.

Note the reason why I asked about the name and the scope is that other opensource projects involved with p2pu could want in the future to use the same name so we should try to make the names and requirements match as much as possible (if there is an open source badge at p2pu people could want the badge for contributing to other open source projects which makes sense).

I thought about this a little bit more. If the badges are to be used more generally, we will need to reconsider the rubrics for the badges. Changing the rubrics of existing badges may not be the best idea, so by naming the badges specific to P2PU, we can avoid the general case for now. When a wider interest is expressed, we can create new general badges and figure out the rubrics with all the role players. We can then decide to adopt the new more general badges for P2PU contributions. See the changes I made to the titles and leave comments?