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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 23, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> 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. > > -sebastien > > > > > > > On 23 May 2013 16:27, Musayev, Ilya <[email protected]> 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. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------- Original message -------- > >> From: Noah Slater <[email protected]> > >> Date: > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Packt Book - Publish on our website? > >> > >> > >> On 23 May 2013 05:05, John Kinsella <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On May 22, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Joe Brockmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Books authored by committers might be a good metric. > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >> > >> 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 <[email protected]> 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. > >> > >> -- > >> NS > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > NS > > -- NS
