I would vote for option 3, Myself and other creators of external community supporting products have never asked for endorsement. We simply seek acknowledgement.
Sent from my HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "Kelly Hair" <kelly.h...@citrix.com> To: "marketing@cloudstack.apache.org" <marketing@cloudstack.apache.org> Subject: Packt Book - Publish on our website? Date: Sat, May 25, 2013 12:54 PM Wonder if it's best to come up with 3 options to vote yeah/nah on. Is it too early to vote on? I'm on a plane so may be missing the most recent on this thread. Did see before boarding on my mobile that Giles had a good suggestion of having an "unendorsed/unofficial community" section of the page. So.. options could be: 1) Do not create a list of external information sources. 2) Create an endorsed/official list of external information services 3) Create an unendorsed/"caveat emptor" list of external information services. Agree with the concern of mind share Giles pointed out should option 1 win out. So, personally I'd vote no to option 1 but yes to both options 2 & 3. PS - apologies if this is repeat by the time I sync up! On 5/24/13 3:01 PM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >On 24 May 2013 21:54, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Quite flabbergasted actually. What's wrong with a book icon on a >>webpage ? >> > >We've been over the opposing arguments several time in this thread. > > >> Checking their book for sanity is a 10 minute deal, one evening if you >> want to be thorough. > > >I think you underestimate how much time it takes to review a book for >quality. Or perhaps we have different interpretations of what a review >would comprise. Note that David spent several evenings on this (I believe) >before he found a problem. > > >> We are spending more time discussing it than it would take doing it. >> Having the Packt book is terrific, there is no being neutral about this. >> > >Discussion-lead consensus-building is an important part of how we make >decisions. :) And it's up to the community to decide how neutral or >circumspect we wish to be about third-party resources. > > >On 24 May 2013 22:06, Kelcey Jamison Damage <kel...@bbits.ca> wrote: > >> I can't imagine this has anything to do with the quality of work at >>this >> point but is primarily a political discussion. >> > >Yes, I believe we are talking about the general case here. (Note: not >"political" but "project".) > > >> I do think the fact I hammered into Packt the value of being a friend of >> the community and following our rules, and product usage guidelines >> resulted in an offer to donate 2% of revenue to the project, is another >> strong gesture of positivity. >> > >Agreed. Similarly, when people donate to us, they get a mention on >http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html ‹ but nothing more. We never >endorse people in return for their contributions. > > >> A lot of time and effort went into this book from a community >>perspective >> and not a commercial one. Yes someone is making money, but at least >>Packt >> reached out and got committers and community members to >> co-write/advise/edit the book prior to publication, and then after >> publication reached back out to the community. Those action have >>impressed >> me greatly. >> > >I don't think anyone has any problem with people making money off the back >of CloudStack. Strikes me as a great thing! > > >> I am not sure how assisting the community in locating print materials is >> bad for us in any way. >> > >The arguments have been covered a few times in this thread already. > >-- >NS
