Adding Contribution-Type metric

[GeorgLink]

This pull request adds details to the metric Contribution-Type (fixes #116 ).

An initial version was created by Georg based on interviews.
Nicole, Sarah, and Daniel reviewed this metric during the weekly D&I meeting on 2019-01-14.

We still need to resolve the question of #122 What focus area should "Contribution Type" be in? Currently it lives in two but maintaining it will be difficult if we have duplication:

• Contributor Community Diversity
• Recognition of Good Work

Lazy consensus: Unless objections are raised by January 28, we will merge this. Until then, all edits, comments, and feedback are welcome.

[emmairwin]

I think the question isn't quite right, and perhaps risks duplicating the focus area for recognition.

Suggest changing : "Do we recognize all contribution types in equal proportions?"

To something like....: "Do we understand the variety of contribution types possible in an open source project, and what decisions can be made as a result of tracking trends of those contributions on diversity and inclusion."

I would also (maybe controversially ?) argue that equal proportions is not the goal. If someone is doing difficult work that other people don't like to do, we might want to invest more in that person's success. (side discussion perhaps)

Small tweaks:

Please change "Avoid developer burnout by sharing tasks across contributors."
To: "Avoid contributor burnout by sharing tasks."

We should not make statements like "A project that lacks diverse contributions often suffers from negative outcomes, including poor documentation, poor CLA, unanswered legal questions, poor brand awareness, low community engagement, and few new contributors."

Without a footnote/attached research.

Questions:

The 'Sample success metrics' looks more like attributes of a 'Contribution Type', when it should describe what success looks like if this metric is high quality and for diversity and inclusion specifically.

For me it would be understanding the number of contributions to each area, by demographics. It would also be identifying trends for contribution-types by demographic. For example do we see a spike or decline in a type of contribution after an event, or a Code of Conduct violation?

If success is around recognition, then something like 'We understand where bias exists in our systems of recognition by contribution type and demographic"

These are some of my quick impressions, largely I want to keep challenging us to tie our metrics to demographics of human diversity as a guide. Contribution type metrics can tell us how we differently value code from documentation, but the outcomes we are after, are deeper than this, we want to know how we can identify bias in our systems, that impact already marginalized people, and solve those first. At least this is my lens,

[emmairwin]

Sorry one other thing, your PR includes two files with duplicate content:

focus_areas/contribution/contribution_type.md
focus_areas/recognition/contribution_type.md

Is this intended?

[GeorgLink]

Update: I move the resource page back to draft mode. I'm leaving the pull request open but have no intention of merging until I had time to address Emma's comments.

@emmairwin thank you. I replied to your email on our mailing list and will at a later time respond here to the individual comments.

[geekygirldawn]

Let's move this to the new Metrics WG.

[emmairwin]

@geekygirldawn @GeorgLink should I close this>? and if so is there a link to issue in metrics group we can refer to>? thanks!

[GeorgLink]

Sure, we can close this. Maybe link to this pull request for the valuable information. I have not gone through Emma's comments.