Add contribution guidelines and CITATION file

[kvrigor]

To make our research software more FAIR.

[s-poll]

Should we also update the LICENSE year to 2026 in this PR?

[s-poll]

Even though this webpage is very nice, I would prefer to reference to some webpage, which is in out control and not of a person, which at least I do not know and might switch off the webpage in future.

[kvrigor]

I would prefer to reference to some webpage, which is in out control and not of a person, which at least I do not know and might switch off the webpage in future.

This means we'd have to write our own guide which I'm trying to avoid.. also we don't need to worry about dead links we could always fetch the cached versions from the Wayback machine

[jjokella]

I agree with @s-poll that the first guideline is interesting and I agree with @kvrigor that we should not write something ourselves.

However, I agree also with @s-poll citing something more "official" than a personal website would be good imo.

Maybe there is something to be found in "lighthouse" Helmholtz RSD or JSC projects?

In RSD I noticed, many use this standardized code of conduct, maybe something for us? https://github.com/jokergoo/circlize/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md

OpenGeoSys, ESM_tools have extensive but seems completely self-written guidelines, maybe ESM_tools one could be adapted...

Parflow seems to adapt Atoms CONTRIBUTING.md: https://github.com/atom/atom/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

CTSM has this https://github.com/ESCOMP/CTSM/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md which is short, but as the code itself becomes more complicated through some links, also citing a blog at some point for code conventions.

Ok, I have the feeling there is not really a nice standardized CONTRIBUTIONS.md to be found out there...

Two more points:

The second resource throws a security risk in my firefox - not sure what this is about.

Typo this->these guidelines in the sentence before.

[s-poll]

Worst case scenario on a private webpage is that the webpage is changed/forwards to / is taken over by some scamming/maleware webpage.

With a our own I meant to use some template as in https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/3/0/code_of_conduct/, but would be also fine to reference to a more "official" webpage as @jjokella suggested.

[kvrigor]

Ok, I have the feeling there is not really a nice standardized CONTRIBUTIONS.md to be found out there...
...
With a our own I meant to use some template as in https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/3/0/code_of_conduct/, but would be also fine to reference to a more "official" webpage as @jjokella suggested.

Precisely because the typical CONTRIBUTING.md look standardized: the contents are comprehensive, but IMO it is often too long and boring to read. I'm trying to avoid writing a dry document that is not likely to be read..

I'm aiming our CONTRIBUTING.md to be concise and be actually read. Everybody's busy so I wanted to make sure that when they read our docs, it's worth their time. The fact you can review my written document closely just proves that, no? 😉.

The second resource throws a security risk in my firefox - not sure what this is about.

Server certificate issue. Does this link work better? How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

However, I agree also with @s-poll citing something more "official" than a personal website would be good imo.

Feel free to suggest another resource that drives home the point way better than How to Report Bugs Effectively. The fact that it's been translated manually by volunteers in 14 other languages proves how it resonated with readers, I think.

Worst case scenario on a private webpage is that the webpage is changed/forwards to / is taken over by some scamming/maleware webpage.

By uptime metrics those "private pages" are actually more public than GitHub.com 😜

[kvrigor]

One more thing: the CONTRIBUTING.md is meant to orient outsiders how they could contribute to the repo. The CONTRIBUTOR Code of Conduct is more of an ethical guide rather than a how-to guide. This is actually a good resource; I'll include it as a reference.

[jjokella]

From my side we can also leave these guides, I think they are nice (even though I have not read the whole texts :-P).

Still it was interesting to see if there are some standardized ways of doing it that we could simply take over (and then also include these general nice links below), but apparently there are not. And at least we got the standardized "Code of Conduct" out of it.

The way-back link works for me, but offers on top some advertisement for donating money to the way-back-machine which is kind of suboptimal, I would say, maybe then just leave the old link.