|12 earlier messages|
|Joe Brockmeier||May 22, 2013 12:50 pm|
|Noah Slater||May 22, 2013 12:55 pm|
|Kelcey Jamison Damage||May 22, 2013 1:01 pm|
|Joe Brockmeier||May 22, 2013 1:21 pm|
|Kelcey Jamison Damage||May 22, 2013 1:25 pm|
|Sebastien Goasguen||May 22, 2013 1:26 pm|
|Musayev, Ilya||May 22, 2013 1:27 pm|
|Joe Brockmeier||May 22, 2013 1:30 pm|
|Kelcey Jamison Damage||May 22, 2013 1:37 pm|
|John Kinsella||May 22, 2013 2:38 pm|
|Kelcey Jamison Damage||May 22, 2013 2:44 pm|
|Noah Slater||May 22, 2013 4:30 pm|
|Kelcey Jamison Damage||May 22, 2013 4:33 pm|
|John Kinsella||May 22, 2013 9:05 pm|
|kel...@backbonetechnology.com||May 22, 2013 10:02 pm|
|Sebastien Goasguen||May 22, 2013 11:06 pm|
|Noah Slater||May 23, 2013 5:25 am|
|Musayev, Ilya||May 23, 2013 8:27 am|
|Noah Slater||May 23, 2013 10:38 am|
|Sebastien Goasguen||May 23, 2013 10:48 am|
|Noah Slater||May 23, 2013 11:21 am|
|Kelcey Jamison Damage||May 23, 2013 11:25 am|
|Noah Slater||May 23, 2013 11:27 am|
|Kelcey Jamison Damage||May 23, 2013 11:28 am|
|Sebastien Goasguen||May 24, 2013 1:20 am|
|kel...@backbonetechnology.com||May 24, 2013 2:23 am|
|Noah Slater||May 24, 2013 2:44 am|
|Noah Slater||May 24, 2013 2:47 am|
|Joe Brockmeier||May 24, 2013 6:45 am|
|kel...@backbonetechnology.com||May 24, 2013 8:29 am|
|Joe Brockmeier||May 24, 2013 11:19 am|
|Musayev, Ilya||May 24, 2013 1:12 pm|
|Chip Childers||May 24, 2013 1:21 pm|
|Kelcey Jamison Damage||May 24, 2013 1:34 pm|
|Sebastien Goasguen||May 24, 2013 1:54 pm|
|Kelcey Jamison Damage||May 24, 2013 2:06 pm|
|Noah Slater||May 24, 2013 3:01 pm|
|Sebastien Goasguen||May 24, 2013 3:06 pm|
|Noah Slater||May 24, 2013 3:20 pm|
|Musayev, Ilya||May 24, 2013 5:08 pm|
|Kelcey Jamison Damage||May 24, 2013 5:52 pm|
|Musayev, Ilya||May 24, 2013 11:12 pm|
|Giles Sirett||May 25, 2013 6:35 am|
|Geoff Higginbottom||May 25, 2013 10:07 am|
|kel...@backbonetechnology.com||May 25, 2013 10:28 am|
|Noah Slater||May 25, 2013 11:36 am|
|Kelly Hair||May 25, 2013 12:54 pm|
|kel...@backbonetechnology.com||May 25, 2013 2:00 pm|
|Giles Sirett||May 25, 2013 2:11 pm|
|Geoff Higginbottom||May 26, 2013 3:49 am|
|1 later message|
|Subject:||Re: Packt Book - Publish on our website?|
|From:||Sebastien Goasguen (run...@gmail.com)|
|Date:||May 24, 2013 1:20:11 am|
On May 23, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Kelcey Jamison Damage <kel...@bbits.ca> wrote:
Fair enough, I was hoping to get a sense for those that are opposed to the
summary, and the reason why.
I don't think we have consensus on this.
On 23 May 2013 19:25, Kelcey Jamison Damage <kel...@bbits.ca> wrote:
To summarize it looks like we all want to have 3rd party resources available, we want to ensure the content of those resources reflects properly on the project, and the wiki sounds like the best way to do it and stay neutral.
Does every one agree with this so far?
I don't think the wiki is the best place. It's a great thing to have books about
CloudStack and we should feature them prominently. We could mention on the website something like: "Listing these books does not
mean that the Apache project endorses them"
FWIW, I feel the same about the case studies, the wiki is not the best place for
However, if you all feel the wiki is the best place, I won't fight it.
If things are done on the wiki, it would be clear that this is a community resource, and not an official project recommendation. We always have the option of removing something that is obviously spammy, or low-quality, etc.
On 23 May 2013 18:48, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote:
Book review is very costly. Several days, to weeks, depending how thorough you are, and how much free time you have, etc. Do we really want to introduce this sort of bottleneck?
When I commented earlier I was not thinking of putting any hard barriers like committer status.
I was merely thinking about books that can be written in couple days, with very poor english, terrible formatting and that could be out of scope despite a "cloudstack" title. We don't want those books listed anywhere.
A blanket approval for listing books is not a good idea, we need a minimal sanity check.
On 23 May 2013 16:27, Musayev, Ilya <imus...@webmd.net> wrote:
Perhaps we can revisit the thought of making it commiter written VS comitters reviewed.
As error safeguard measure it would make sense if have at least 3 commiters review the publication.
Reason being, while many of us are comitters, some of us maybe more competent in some areas of ACS and less on the other. Therefore if we have several comitters review the publication, we minimize the error posibilty. if i was to make an example, i've spent alot of time building private clouds that would suit traditional enterprises, i may not be an expert on designing web hosting shops (just yet).
Obviously exclusions apply, if someone have spent many years as a core ACS architect and developer - he may not need several commiters to review the publication - though it would not hurt.
The commiters who will be reviewing publication must notify the community via mailing list. If there are points of uncertainty, the should be brought on ML as well.
On 23 May 2013 05:05, John Kinsella <jl...@stratosec.co> wrote:
On May 22, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
Books authored by committers might be a good metric.
I think this is exclusionary. As Kelcey points out, there's a high probability that some of the best books on CloudStack are not written by committers.
On 23 May 2013 07:06, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote:
Let me put it bluntly. IMHO wiki pages are a death sentence, nobody will find that information. If it's not featured on the website then there is no point talking about it.
Blunt, but hyperbolic. ;) If you really feel so strongly about the wiki, you should propose that we shut it down. ;)
The wiki is a community resource, and we should embrace that, and encourage that.
If you're concerned that people visiting the main website will not notice, and will never find, a page that lists third-party resources, then I suggest a patch that provides a link in the nav saying "third-party resources" and link it to the wiki.