Update CITATION.cff with contributor ORCIDs

[bjlittle]

🚀 Pull Request

Description

This PR updates the CITATION.cff file with most of our contributor ORCID details, as per issue #135.

I'm rolling with the 80/20 rule i.e., we can bank the majority of the ORCIDs now.

Note that, I've ordered the entries alphabetically by surname, which seems reasonable.

I'll leave issue #135 open and pinned for now. Perhaps our remaining contributors may get back to us at some point, or raise a pull-request themselves. We'll see ...

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (ef60bd4) 97.36% compared to head (9c57485) 97.36%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #136   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.36%   97.36%           
=======================================
  Files           7        7           
  Lines         644      644           
=======================================
  Hits          627      627           
  Misses         17       17           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[spencerkclark]

Thanks @bjlittle! I will maybe defer to @pelson and @lbdreyer on the order of the names, since as I understand it they were the ones to initially conceptualize and package up nc-time-axis. This otherwise looks good to me.

[pelson]

I will maybe defer to @pelson and @lbdreyer on the order of the names, since as I understand it they were the ones to initially conceptualize and package up nc-time-axis

Sure, but it is a team effort to keep it going, so from my perspective, I'm happy with whatever order is chosen, including if Laura wants to be lead-author.

[bjlittle]

Okay, I totally hear what @pelson saying, but I love the intent of @spencerkclark's point, so let's recognise that and seed the list with @lbdreyer and @pelson who are the creators of nc-time-axis 💯 ❤️

[spencerkclark]

@bjlittle indeed I like that idea a lot! Thanks @pelson for weighing in. Assuming @lbdreyer is good with it too, I think this is ready to go.

[lbdreyer]

I'm not concerned by the order of names, so happy to go with alphabetical or as it currently is

[bjlittle]

@spencerkclark I think this PR is now good to bank?

[spencerkclark]

Yes, thanks @bjlittle and @lbdreyer! I’ll go ahead and merge.