> > I'm also comfortable with a strict approach where we just list actual > Apache Cassandra offerings, that also provides good solid clarity to > users.
That sounds like a reasonable proposal. I just do not know how we can do that in practice. What is a actual Apache Cassandra offering and how do we check that it is effectively one ? What if the offering offers some secondary indices that are not delivered with Apache Cassandra (it is the first pluggable thing that came to my mind) or the code being used is a C* fork? Two things that I found interesting are: 1 ) some companies that propose offerings only using some parts of Apache Cassandra are contributing to the project in diverse ways 2) the offer descriptions seem honest to me. They do not claim that they run the official Apache Cassandra if they do not. So, I would be more in favor of a welcoming approach in the hope that people will be honest and that it might also lead them to invest and contribute to the project. The other advantage of that approach being that it will not put any pressure on us to ensure that an offering is an actual Apache Cassandra offering (which I am absolutely not interested in doing ;-)) Le ven. 25 juin 2021 à 15:28, Erick Ramirez <erick.rami...@datastax.com> a écrit : > I'm a huge +1 to the sentiments here. > > I have to confess that I've been responsible for publishing the updates for > several months now with Mick's mentoring. I publish the content I was > requested to push to the site but as far as review is concerned, the only > review I do is mostly around grammar and formatting and make sure that the > updates render correctly on the site. > > It would be ideal if there was a charter from the community I could refer > to so it wouldn't seem like I'm unilaterally rejecting some entries but not > others. I'm glad we've got this thread because I could use it to support > what I do on the site. Cheers! >
