On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:26:44PM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On Thu, May 2, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > > IMO, if the costs for attendance were only to cover the cost of doing > > the training, then I'd be fine. I assume, however, that ShapeBlue is > > hoping to make a little profit from the training. (If I'm wrong, > > correct me) While I *love* that it's happening, and I hope that it goes > > well, and frankly like companies in our ecosystem to be profitable... > > the project itself should not be endorsing commercial ventures. > > > > Comments / flames? > > Here's my thoughts: > > - Linking to an event in the calendar isn't endorsing so much as > informing people it's happening. > > - Historically, I've put talks, etc., that are tutorials on CloudStack > in the events section even when they're part of an event that's paid. > (e.g. OSCON) Those events are also for-profit, and the talks are of > interest to our community. I see a subtle difference between "this talk > is happening at OSCON" and "Acme Cloud Company is doing paid training," > but both situations are us pointing to a commercial venture. > > I am OK with having a line between what's acceptable and not, so long as > we're consistent and the line is logical. An open registration event for > training (as opposed to an advertisement for in-house training that's > not of general interest) seems OK *to me* but I'll go with whatever > seems to be consensus.
I was stating my personal opinion here... so I'm also OK if we (1) define how we want to proceed as a project and (2) are consistent in application (as Joe suggested). I'm not -1 on this, just -0. Others can feel free to move this forward!
