Design Discussion: Contributor Recognition Architecture

[Tanishq-mellu]

Hi, I’ve been reviewing the OWASP Nest codebase to better understand the Contributor recognition program milestone.

I noticed that contributions_count and contribution_data are already stored in the GitHubUser model, which seems like a strong foundation for building a recognition system .

I’m considering implementing the recognition layer as a tier-based system (e.g. , Bronze/Silver/Gold) built on top of these existing metrics.
Before moving further, I’d like to clarify the intended direction:
Should recognition be based purely on total contribution count ?
Or should it incorporate weighted metrics such as PRs, issues, reviews, leadership roles, etc.?
I’d appreciate guidance to ensure alignment before proceeding with the architectural design.

[zenowinged]

hi @Tanishq-mellu i'd like to work with you on this issue if it's cool with you. Could you explain the issue to me once so i can understand it better?

[Tanishq-mellu]

Hi @zenowinged,
Yes, absolutely - happy to collaborate

The idea here is to design a Contributor recognition system on top of the existing contributions_count and contribution_data fields in the GitHubUser model . The goal is to introduce a tier- based recognition layer (e.g. , Bronze/Silver/Gold) based on contribution metrics .
Right now, I’m trying to clarify whether the scoring should be based purely on total contributions or include weighted metrics like PRs , issues, reviews, and leadership roles .
Happy to discuss and shape the design together .

[zenowinged]

@Tanishq-mellu,
i honestly think that the weighted metric system would be much better...relying purely on total counts might lead to stuff like opening tons of minor issues just to rank up. if we go with the weighted metrics, we could decide something like 5 points for each PR raised (or merged, whichever seems fair), 10 points for an issue, and so on...we can discuss the details accordingly. lmk your thoughts on this.

[Tanishq-mellu]

I agree - a weighted system makes more sense and would help prevent misuse like opening minor issues just to increase count.
Maybe we can define clear categories first (e.g. , merged PRs , reviews , meaningful issues , leadership roles) and then decide fair weights based on impact rather than just activity .
We can start with a simple model and refine it after reviewing actual contribution patterns .
Happy to iterate on this together

[zenowinged]

sounds perfect. let me know once you've come up with a design or if you'd like any input, and then i can code it out. or the other way around, whichever works.