cloudstack-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "" <>
Subject Re: Packt Book - Publish on our website?
Date Sat, 25 May 2013 21:00:14 GMT
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" <>
To: "" <>
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

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 &

PS - apologies if this is repeat by the time I sync up!

On 5/24/13 3:01 PM, "Noah Slater" <> wrote:

>On 24 May 2013 21:54, Sebastien Goasguen <> 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 <> wrote:
>>  I can't imagine this has anything to do with the quality of work at
>> 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
> ‹ 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
>> and not a commercial one. Yes someone is making money, but at least
>> 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
>> 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.
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message