8 ms·
Humans.txt
- bufordsharkley 12y agoIt's interesting (in my mind, disappointing) that Github lists only active staff-- in my mind, humans.txt should document all the people who have ever worked to bring a website to its current state.
- rev_bird 12y agoIt was my understanding that it was supposed to – kind of like the credits at the end of a movie. It's not a list of people who work with the production company when you see the movie, just when it was made. Add people whenever you want, but taking people out just makes it another, less readable "About Us" page.
- Kiro 12y agoIt's not listing all active staff. I wonder what the requirements are.
- kcorbitt 12y agoIf I had to guess, I'd say it lists the people who take the initiative/care enough to edit the file for themselves and commit their updates. Github is famous for having an open organization, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were no designated maintainer/required process to add yourself to humans.txt.
- tomschlick 12y agoIt may just be a script that gets all the active org members who can edit github/github and copies their profile info.
- spectre256 12y agoSince robots.txt is a list of directives and restrictions on computerized visitors to a site, shouldn't humans.txt basically be a tutorial/code of conduct? Something like: "Hello Human, Welcome to Github. You should use this site to upload a bunch of code that others might find useful, or contribute to code others have written. You can write comments on any code you find, but please don't be a jerk!"
- geoffharcourt 12y agoThe humans.txt project has a slightly different goal for the endpoint vs. robots.txt: http://humanstxt.org/ http://humanstxt.org/
- flyt 12y agoThere's a reason Steve removed "easter eggs" and lists of people that worked on projects at Apple: there's no reason to give other companies a list to poach from. I don't know why GitHub is making this so easy.
- avar 12y agoMaybe some companies don't view their employees as their exclusive property that they have to be kept under wraps. If you take this idea to its logical conclusion you'd have to ban your employees from using sites like LinkedIn, which make it really easy to find out who works where. Much better to show your employees that they're appreciated at your company, then maybe they'll continue staying because they really like their job, not because you've set up some policy where other companies who might want to hire them can't find out who they are.
- secfirstmd 12y agoI fail to understand how that guy is soooo euologised in the tech community....what you just said, wage fixing agreements and non-poaching agreements of his staff...what a bad example he is.
- saraid216 12y agoIt's worth remembering that a lot of people in the tech community are also evil.
- restlessdesign 12y agoFind: “Julie Ann Horvath” Results: 0 Cool story… 👎
- bdg 12y agoAre other non-employees on this list?
- callmevlad 12y agoNo. One of the original founders and their original designer / head of product are not on the list as they have both left the company.
- krat0sprakhar 12y agoHacked up a chart of the locations - http://goo.gl/f8cVWO http://goo.gl/f8cVWO Unsurprisingly, San francisco has a lot of Githubbers.
- arnley 12y agoI like this one http://sonetin.com/humans.txt http://sonetin.com/humans.txt
- teddyh 12y agoAm I the only one that is annoyed that this doesn’t use RFC 5785¹ – i.e. /.well-known/humans.txt? ① https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785
- nobotty 12y ago.well-known is really long and not semantic. it sucks.
- philsnow 12y agotwo github people work in south bend, in ? I'm curious what the story is there, if anybody wants to talk about it.