Define how partners should be ranked

[bjohansebas]

We should document how partners are ranked, since up until now I was the one who assigned the rankings, and they were based on my own subjective criteria from quite a while ago.

My reasoning was that a higher number meant a higher priority:

• Tier 3: Critical infrastructure, or partners that covered multiple categories.
• Tier 2: Partners that provide an important service in a single category (e.g. ESP or Security).
• Tier 1: Partners that support non-critical infrastructure, such as downloads or content.

I don't think these criteria should just be based on my personal opinion, though. They should be documented and agreed upon by the people who oversee the project as a whole.

[ljharb]

why not show every sponsor all at once, but use criteria like the above to determine ordering and relative size, with a little randomness thrown in?

[bjohansebas]

That's actually how the site works today. All partners are displayed, both on the homepage and on the dedicated partners page. The only place where not all of them are shown is the downloads page And the tiers are used to determine how likely a partner is to be shown before the others.

[bjohansebas]

We just need to define the criteria, and I think some team, probably the web admins or the TSC should be responsible for deciding how partners are classified, especially in Vercel's case (as discussed here: https://openjs-foundation.slack.com/archives/CVAMEJ4UV/p1782951607421969)