Um... as for transparency of "who is a modder"...
1. You must create original content. I am pretty skeptical of accepting people who don't make anything that doesn't count as Original Art. Tweaking stats and doing a kitbash mod of pre-existing OTA stuff is not serious modding. Making all-new animations, artwork, sounds, etc., is an important qualifier.
That means that Maestro, FLOZi, Smoth, and Caydr (and yes, Fanger, GuessMyName, Centurion-01, and many others) are all, absolutely, in the "modder" category. For those with bad memories, Caydr has been building absolutely original content for GEM
However... people making a "mod" like "XTA: The Rebalance Wars"... are, in my opinion, on very thin ice. I would be pretty darn annoyed, myself, if somebody just ripped off my content for NanoBlobs and tweaked minor stuff, and then requested to be called a "modder".
While my statements above contain no absolutes, and there are always exceptions to the rule... I'd say that in general, unless you're re-modeling and re-scripting units at a minimum, you're not really making original works, and should not be allowed to participate.
2. You must release something that is functional and relatively bug-free.
I don't mind, and strongly encourage,
weird gameplay ideas. Weird is good. Weird will improve Spring. Weird will help people building non-weird things find really great, offbeat ideas to stea... er, borrow from
However, I have serious problems with the idea that people who build mods with divide-by-zero errors, endlessly-looping COB scripts, and other evidence that leads a reasonable person to suggest that they don't understand the word, "playtest" should get to call themselves Mod Developers and join the party. They can read our documentation, sure- and I, for one, intend to provide as much as I can find time for, just as I have been.
It's not that I don't want people like that to learn and improve- the whole objective of this process, after all, should not be to create some bogus "modder elite", who get to dominate the Spring release process. That would be extremely bad for Spring.
However, if we're going to have a private Forum, like the mappers do, it's pretty important that we have some quality standards, so that newbies are aware that they need to spend the time and effort needed to clean up their "products" before being able to post there, let alone release via SVN.
3. Lastly... I think that while people who're totally and legitimately Mod Developers exist who're using Other People's IP... they should never, ever be allowed SVN access for those projects. It is
never going to be safe for GuessMyName's project to be on SVN. It's a 40K rip. I have no problems with it, and encourage his effort to succeed- which it appears that it is, and surprisingly quickly, from the screenies I've seen- but... you cannot put stuff like that into SVN. And, of course, there needs to be a practical upper limit on filesize, or Spring will become a bloated monster.
Personally, I think that after this release... if a mod wants to qualify to become part of Spring, it needs to not only satisfy the terms of the GPL and Creative Commons licenses, but we should probably have a voting process. This will probably mean the quick removal of NanoBlobs, which I'll be the first to admit has a very... ah... tiny public following... but whatever replaced it would still be an Open Source project, and would be something likely to make players sit up and take notice. So if anybody's wondering if I am manuevering for a prime seat or something... no. Not unless I can hold it, by releasing superior content that actually generates player interest, as opposed to making wool-gathering mods for a very narrow audience
