Add Fellowship announcement to the Blog

[omarespejel]

A blog post announcing the Hugging Face Fellowship.

[merveenoyan]

I added my notes, since this document was initially aimed for people who were already close to us, I feel like we should have a bit of less playful language if we want to onboard new contributors and fellows.

[omarespejel]

Thanks @merveenoyan! Your comments made complete sense to me! I applied them.

I believe the next step would be to add the list of priority fields where Hugging Face would want contributions. It would be the same document you created for the current Fellows. I added it to the public one-pager.

[merveenoyan]

LGTM but I'd like to wait and see what @osanseviero has to say

[osanseviero]

Thanks for setting this up! I left some comments 🚀

[patrickvonplaten]

It's very nicely written! I'm still generally a bit worried about making this a somewhat exclusive club, which I don't think we want to do.

1. I would remove all mentions of exclusivity and "expert" contributors. Calling only contributors in this group "experts" can make people that are not in this group feel like 2nd class contributors.
2. Think it could help to make a distinction between "community contribution" and "open-source contribution". To me, an open-source contribution is a code contribution to a GitHub library and maybe a model contribution, but "open-source" initially is about code no? So writing that many "open-source" contribution can make you a fellow doesn't look to be the case here at the moment. Can we frame this maybe more as "community contributors"
3. It should be clear how to become a hugging fellow IMO and whoever is motivated to join the group should be able to do so. If this is not clear, it makes the group again look quite exclusive.
4. Hugging fellows should not only collaborate with other hugging fellows but with fellow open-source contributors which include everybody - it sounds a bit to me that collaborations should only happen within the hugging fellows.

[merveenoyan]

@patrickvonplaten I agree in most points, @omarespejel we can change the wording to "community contributors". Still since it is not structured atm not to limit the ways people can contribute, we wanted to keep it open ended. We can remove exclusivity and expert wording and change it to something else.

[omarespejel]

Thanks for your reviews @merveenoyan @osanseviero and @patrickvonplaten! Everything makes sense to me.

• Regarding your points, @patrickvonplaten, I applied them all. Thank you for noting those gaps. Indeed, the exclusivity of content and collaborations does not go hand in hand with our goal as a company (thanks @merveenoyan also for your last suggestion).
• I believe both "community contributors" (e.g. María Grandury) and "open-source contributors" (Bram) are accepted as Fellows.

WDYT?

[omarespejel]

@osanseviero @merveenoyan, I think this is ready to launch. Although I do not want it to be too close to the Student Ambassador announcement on May 13. We could announce it on May 17, WDYT?

*Once defined, I will solve the merge conflict and update the release dates.

[osanseviero]

Overall looks good, I left some comments. I would be more explicit that this is in an alpha/beta stage.

[osanseviero]

Should it say Alpha or Beta or something like that?

[merveenoyan]

I suggest we don't say that.

[omarespejel]

I believe it would be worth specifying this is a Beta program (being tested open to the public). Being clear that a lot of pieces are still falling into place and we are iterating.

However @merveenoyan if you are sure that it should not be mentioned that it is a Beta, it is ok for me. Will release without the Beta part; if you wish me to add it I can apply it immediately.

[merveenoyan]

Overall looks good, I left some comments. I would be more explicit that this is in an alpha/beta stage.

I don't think it's good to give that signal, it sounds a bit insecure and sloppy tbh

[merveenoyan]

I did pick couple of nits, not many suggestions.