Add community resources guidelines/policy

[Mehgugs]

Currently there is no information regarding the way the community resources section of the docs is managed. Now that the bot api is changing quite rapidly, in preparation for the message intent, it is likely that the ecosystem will change a bit and it would be a good idea to add some guidelines for developers.

As it stands there are at least four libraries on the list whose status may need to be reviewed and amongst those there are libraries that have been archived, namely disco and Sword. Discord says "The Discord team curates the following list of officially vetted libraries that conform to our APIs standards" in the documentation, but this statement needs to be reviewed. That commitment was made just over 5 years ago when discord was a much smaller place, and the team who manage this repository now is different. From my prespective I don't see curation and while that is not necessarily a problem, it is misleading.

Looking at new submissions there are six libraries at least waiting to be reviewed in pull requests. There seems to be no information on how that happens and the most recent developer activity on such a pull request is the 12th of July. My library is in limbo and this has highlighted the lack of information on this process. As an example: a contributor or user cannot submit something on the maintainer's behalf, and it's things like this that should be clarified.

Finally, there are benefits to being listed that make development of new features easier for those libraries. I'm not sure exactly how this works or if everyone is given the same information. With that being said, developers whose libraries are listed as a community resource have access to information regarding new features ahead of time, and are prioritized for testing those features to some degree. There are many people out there developing tools to interact with the api who are simply unaware of this who would greatly benefit from knowing there are or aren't opportuninities to get access to information pertinent to their projects development.

This has been updated to reflect the actual process as it stands: if you are a library developer who has a presence in either discord developers or another related community -- like dapi -- you can dm one of the devs in the developers server asking for access to the hidden channels which contain a smattering of resources, although from what I understand its mostly used as a quieter space to ask questions without the masses of other people in the server. Once again the critera for this is not disclosed and is not tied to the community resources "curation" / "vetting" process at all. The deficiencies in this system of communication deserve their own discussion even though they are clearly linked to this issue.

[Rapptz]

Finally, there are benefits to being listed that make development of new features easier for those libraries.

I don't think this is true. Even the basic "does it increase traffic to our library?" can't be answered since they use noreferrer links so GitHub can't track traffic from the docs page.

I'm not sure exactly how this works or if everyone is given the same information. With that being said, developers whose libraries are listed as a community resource have access to information regarding new features ahead of time, and are prioritized for testing those features to some degree.

This is based off of library usage (and some nepotism) not the list.

[Mehgugs]

Thank you for clarifying. I'd just like things to feel a bit less clandestine, especially when there's going to be more features added. If that is just related to the discord developers server itself and not part of the stuff connected to community resources then I'm not sure where to put feedback about it.

[typpo]

This is in process here #4456