Add all-contributors bot and update CITATION.cff

[anissa111]

PR Summary

• adds DOI to CITATION.cff
• Sets up all-contributors bot with .all-contributorsrc
• Starts contributor section of README.md

Notes:

• I contemplated using "content" instead of "code" here, but the "code" emoji will link to commits made by each contributor, which feels more tangibly useful
• I tried not to think too hard about contribution types for each of us. If I've missed something or chosen a weird category, let me know and I'll change it!
• See what it looks like live on my fork's README

Related Tickets & Documents

Part of #59

PR Checklist

General

• PR includes a summary of changes
• Link relevant issues, make one if none exist

[github-actions]

Meowdy! See your PR preview:
🔍 Git commit SHA: 903dab9
✅ Deployment Preview URL: https://NCAR.github.io/geocat-applications/_preview/63

[cyschneck]

So will Code will cover the general documentation? One of the keys is Tutorials, would that cover these kind of pages?

[anissa111]

So will Code will cover the general documentation? One of the keys is Tutorials, would that cover these kind of pages?

I imagined "code" describing anything that adds content to to the site, as the core code of this project is the content, you know? I thought about "tutorials", but figured we should save that for any actual tutorials we run in the future.

I've interpreted "docs" to mean anything that's not content on the site.

[kafitzgerald]

I think I'd advocate for explicitly including folks (especially for the time being while it's pretty easy to manage) and decoupling the all contributors stuff from the citation (i.e removing this for now and manually syncing the info).

That said, I'm curious what the intent was here - is it trying to tie in some metadata about who contributed what?

[anissa111]

Oh! Maybe I misunderstood the conclusions from our last meeting convo.

So, yes, I had intended that we explicitly include folks that contribute to the level of "authorship". This here is just for also linking to non-authorship contributions (and, I suppose who contributed what metadata for official "authorship" contributors).

[kafitzgerald]

Would you be opposed to leaving it out for now? I think it's a little confusing since it's effectively the same people, but infers maybe an authors and others categorization. This is maybe a me thing though so if you prefer this way I think it's fine.

[anissa111]

I don't have strong feelings here, we can always add it back later if the people listed in both meaningfully diverges.

[kafitzgerald]

🎉

[kafitzgerald]

I agree the code vs docs thing is murky, but this seems like a great start!

Thanks for putting this all together!