Withdraw permission for Branding usage

[Martii]

• Unfortunately @joshbruce lost some credibility by a post edit with an edit misusing the OpenUserJS brand so respectfully removing listing.

NOTE:

• This is probably why no-one else has done this

Ref:

• Add self from OUJS Organization to AUTHORS.md #1233

with

LGTM!

... apparently it wasn't and shouldn't have been merged without all parties consent.

[joshbruce]

I'm sorry you feel that way, it was not my intention.

I removed the link to make future possible edits easier and gain some consistency. Notice the first cell all contain "legal" names without links. This gives those users a chance to say, "I'm Ben". We also have GitHub handles so they can capitalize there as well without divulging too much in the form of PII. This also minimizes the links associated with a single record.

For the organization example, if 8fold was a direct user of marked, I would put "8fold" or "8fold Productivity" or "8fold Software" or "8fold Productivity, LLC" in the first cell, a link to our .pro or .software site in the second, possibly a link to the specific GitHub project that used Marked in the third cell, and my name in the final cell.

When I modified the user table in #1217 I was looking for consistency in the first cells, ease of editing, and didn't seem like anything was lost given that the link to the website and GitHub project were still there.

We, the Marked project, are also offering a place for projects and users to advertise their presence and association; so, we should have some say and latitude in the presentation of that "advertising" - this is not a one-sided partnership.

Adding a project to the AUTHORS page gives those maintainers the opportunity to plug their work with:

• name recognition,
• link to their main website,
• link to their GitHub project, and
• the name of the submitter (who will most likely be the primary maintainer).

We receive hundreds of unique visits a day and almost one million downloads a week; therefore, this mechanism is not just for us to say, "Look who uses our stuff!" it's a way for other projects to capitalize on Marked's brand recognition in the community...without ever contributing a line of code to the project.

This was also the first time; therefore, bound to be some mistakes. In the future, we probably should extend the courtesy for the submitter to review those types of changes.

As mentioned, completely up to you and my intention was not to offend.

ps. Snyk.io is a well known and respected database and security vulnerability tool. Marked used to be listed there, which is a bad thing, it has since been removed after I showed up...not that I solved the problem myself mind you.

[edit] pps. Given that we, the core team of maintainers, don't add people to the user table, it should be apparent we're offering it more as a way for other projects to leverage our brand recognition for their own benefit.

[UziTech]

I feel like the pendulum has swung a little far. A simple request to add the link back would have been fine. I don't see where it was stated that the link must stay.

[Martii]

@UziTech

I don't see where it was stated that the link must stay.

Ref:

• 49839e1 First commit message reference at second list item
• d95b1dc Second commit message reference at first list item

we probably should extend the courtesy for the submitter to review those types of changes.

Would have been useful for collaboration especially since this was said:

One the other settings we have is that it takes two approvers before getting merged.

I didn't seem to see this in a related sense but with a post edit in # 1217 which seems unrelated especially since the badge column was requested to be removed. In short I'm disappointed that @joshbruce didn't stand his ground in my PR and then what appears to be unrelated in another PR (doesn't look like the first time a miscommunication has happened in that particular PR either). I can be flexible as much as possible but I also have to maintain our Branding standards. So I would have closed it and let him continue with laying out the template as he said at #1233 (comment) . Clearly it's your documentation however courtesy wasn't fully maintained imho with a post edit. That feels very uncomfortable.

Anyhow... it's just a minor set back at the moment I hope... perhaps I was just too early to do the earlier PR. Being proactive can disturb the status quo sometimes. So I do apologize for any unannounced misgivings that I may have received. I still like the project and I still mostly like what you all are doing. Perhaps when this section, including policies, is fully polished we will revisit. Just need an amicable disassociation which has been satisfied. Thank you.

[joshbruce]

@Martii: Just doing the "Humaning helper" thing here. To clarify, the two approvers are two people with committer rights. Sometimes things will get merged by meeting this criterion and will be altered in subsequent PRs. It wasn't until after merging #1233 then rebasing the #1217 PR that I could see what it felt like to edit the table; so I made some changes. Then #1217 got two approvers (of which I don't count as one) and was merged. The courtesy I mentioned would have been to @mention you to let you know something changed in the record (having said that, I'll probably submit a PR with more explicit instructions on that section).

The beauty of GitHub and open source projects is that they're not static...anyone, anywhere can submit updates and modifications at any time...of course, this can also be the frustration. Having a PR submitted and merged only to have another PR touching the same area of code or documentation is pretty normal though.