I would like to mirror Chip's comments and also distance myself a bit from Ilya's comments.
IMO, writing a book is a significant contribution to Apache CloudStack. I don't care about that person's involvement on the mailing lists. In fact, I think we should promote any book about CloudStack that would be beneficial to our community. Even if it's written by someone we don't know. To exclude people from that promotion based on social ties or community involvement is antithetical to our mission. Additionally, I hope people profiteer from our efforts on CloudStack. I wish them every success. That is also what we are here for. There is no preferential treatment of for-profit or not-for-profit enterprise. My only concern is that by putting the book on the website, we introduce an "approvals process". i.e. Authors have to ask us to add the book to the website. On the one hand, that will let us vet them (a good thing for quality and anti-spam), but a bad thing if we end up turning people away because they're "not sufficiently known in the community" or turning books away for any for no good reason*. * "no good reason" is going to be contentious. I think as long as the book is related to CloudStack, we ought to mention it. But if we put this stuff on the website instead of letting it live on the wiki, people are going to start holding it to a higher standard, and I can imagine arguments about whether a book is "good enough", etc. And that's a can of worms, IMO. On 28 May 2013 18:06, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 04:56:46PM +0000, Musayev, Ilya wrote: > > PS: I do see an overwhelming benefit of the book to educate new ACS > users, and benefits at this moment may outweighs the negatives I've > mentioned. I can lower my vote to "0", but I would strongly suggest we > revise this in the near future as more books come on board and we just > blindly promote books and let others profiteer from ACS efforts. > > > > The ASF is specifically structured to support commercial use of it's work. > The license is designed to be commercially friendly on purpose. > Most of us are using the software within a commercial setting > (a distribution, a cloud provider (internal or external), consulting > services, > etc...). Commerce is a good thing. > > > As for the vote: > > I've been thinking more about this issue over the weekend. There are 2 > considerations for me: > > 1) As a project, we want to continue to grow and diversify both users > and contributors. > > Showcasing work in the ecosystem (books, software that integrated into > ACS, etc...) helps with that goal. > > 2) As a project within the ASF, we want to ensure that our project > remains an open and equal environment. > > There is ASF precedent to go either way with this, so there are no > issues procedurally or at the foundation level for us to be concerned > with really (beyond the overarching goal to remain open to all). > > > I'm +1 on adding this to the site. > > -chip > -- NS
