E-book Correction Who can I talk to about improving the textbooks?

Thread Starter

chogg

Joined Dec 8, 2019
11
I recently posted some improvements and modernizations I made to the textbooks, and uploaded to github. However, my post was deleted for "Site Promotion"... presumably because I linked directly to the github project? It wasn't clear to me.

My improvements make the project significantly more maintainable, and I'd still like to help out if I can! So I have a few questions.

  1. How do I get in touch with the maintainer(s) of the textbooks to offer my contributions for review? It wasn't clear to me from the textbook webpage.
  2. Where can I read the forum rules, so I don't accidentally violate them again? I read through the sticky posts, but I didn't see anything about "site promotion". Sorry if I missed it!
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
There must be more to it than that. I have seen links to GitHub and other offsite services that are not deleted.

Since the AAC textbook is copyrighted, perhaps the offense involved the copyright. In other words, modifying copyrighted material is not considered fair use so far as I know. Since copyright protects the form, not the content, allowing one's copyrighted material to be revised and posted could dilute protections of the copyright.

I did not see the original post, so all of that is guesswork. Contacting the "write for us" link is probably the right thing to do.

Another thing to do if the changes are small is to post in Feedback and Suggestions.
 

Thread Starter

chogg

Joined Dec 8, 2019
11
Thanks everybody for your kind help!

ericgibbs, interestingly, for me the website looks nothing like what I see in your image attachments. I was still able to find the rules by Ctrl-F'ing for "Terms" (for me the link is "Terms of Service").

Having read the rules, I'm still not entirely clear on what I originally did wrong. My best guess in retrospect is the title, "Github version of LIEC textbooks now available!". Perhaps that made it sound as though I'm promoting a competing version of the textbooks? My actual goal is to offer the maintainers a new home for the project, with a cleaned up and simplified source structure, and a modernized contributor workflow. I think github---or, minimally, actually using version control, regardless of where it's hosted!---is a lot better than maintaining zip files and passing them around.

jpanhalt, I don't think it's a copyright issue. IANAL, but I thought the intent of the Design Science License was to allow people to make improvements, or even fork the project.

Also, thanks for the forum post suggestion, but the changes are... not small. :) The content itself is virtually unchanged, but the structure of the project is changed significantly. I couldn't communicate changes of this magnitude in a forum post.

Anyway... I will take pursue the suggested link and see where it goes. Thanks again everyone!
 

ericgibbs

Joined Jan 29, 2010
12,964
hi chogg,
There are two versions of AAC, the Classic Blue and the latest Orange, I use the Classic Blue.
[to try the Blue version, on your keyboard, press and hold down the CTRL key and then press the R key].

Your query has now been brought to attention of the Administrators, I expect they will give a Ruling in due course.

E
 

Thread Starter

chogg

Joined Dec 8, 2019
11
Actually, now that I've looked at the link in more detail, I'm not sure it's the right fit. This seems to be for writing articles and/or contributing other technical content. I'm not interested in contributing content at the moment; I'm interested in improving the tooling and infrastructure around the textbook project. Several fields on that page seem irrelevant; for instance, why would I need to dig up my CV?

Someone mentioned the administrators have been notified about this post. Maybe my best bet is to wait for them to weigh in, and direct me to the right person/people to talk to.

Once I find out whether the maintainers of the textbook project are open to considering/reviewing this change, I'd be glad to write up a brief explainer on the major differences included, and why I think they're improvements.
 

Thread Starter

chogg

Joined Dec 8, 2019
11
I haven't heard anything yet.

I understand this proposed change was unasked-for, and the powers that be might be confused about why they should want it. I would be more than happy to give a bullet point list of the major changes, along with a brief explanation of why I think each one is an improvement. Just ask! :)
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
16,180
Not responding is just plain rude. The response does not have to be public, but it should exist. Seems like the NIH factor is alive and well. That really shouldn't surprise those of us who have retired from industry. It has always been this way.
 

tkosan

Joined Dec 17, 2019
25
I recently became interested in the possibility of contributing example problem solutions to the LIEC textbooks. However, when I downloaded the source code to the books and built it I noticed modern techniques were not being used to manage this code. This made me hesitant to contribute to it.

I was able to find the GitHub project that chogg created for the book and I cloned it. I studied the project's commit history and built the DC book. The improvements chogg made are excellent and I agree with him that moving the book's code to a modern version control system will make it much easier for people like me to contribute to the book.

I would like to see the bullet point list of the major changes chogg made, along with a brief explanation of why he thinks each one is an improvement. However, if AAC prefers that we don't continue this discussion on the AAC forms, it would be easy to move the discussion into an issue on the new GitHub project website chogg created for the book.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
16,180
I recently became interested in the possibility of contributing example problem solutions to the LIEC textbooks. However, when I downloaded the source code to the books and built it I noticed modern techniques were not being used to manage this code. This made me hesitant to contribute to it.

I was able to find the GitHub project that chogg created for the book and I cloned it. I studied the project's commit history and built the DC book. The improvements chogg made are excellent and I agree with him that moving the book's code to a modern version control system will make it much easier for people like me to contribute to the book.

I would like to see the bullet point list of the major changes chogg made, along with a brief explanation of why he thinks each one is an improvement. However, if AAC prefers that we don't continue this discussion on the AAC forms, it would be easy to move the discussion into an issue on the new GitHub project website chogg created for the book.
Silence implies neither consent nor dissent. People are free of course to do what they will.
Personally, I have never used the textbook, and so it is a matter of little concern to me. I know that some members find it useful and that is reason enough for its existence.
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
I also looked up the "revised" version on GitHub. One needs to register with Microsoft, which owns GitHub, to access content. That's not going to happen with me. Moreover that added restriction on redistribution can be viewed as a violation of the Creative Commons license. Without paying that "price," one cannot determine whether other aspects such as authorship and attribution are retained.

It seems pellucidly obvious to me why AAC's ownership does not want the content there with reformatted images. So far as I can see, "chogg" has made no substantive contributions to the work. He/she just wants to distribute it under their identity,.
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
Silence implies neither consent nor dissent. People are free of course to do what they will.
Personally, I have never used the textbook, and so it is a matter of little concern to me. I know that some members find it useful and that is reason enough for its existence.
Absence of consent is rejection in every American and most, perhaps all, world courts. The reason should be obvious.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
16,180
Absence of consent is rejection in every American and most, perhaps all, world courts. The reason should be obvious.
That would be great if the rules of the courtroom applied here. I'll let you in on a little secret -- they don't.
In point of fact we simply don't know what their position is. Perhaps they don't feel the offer is worthy of any response at all.
IMHO that position is rude, but certainly within their responsibilities as I understand them.
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,088
The rules of the courtroom in this case are simply common sense. It seems you can't understand that and would futile to try to explain.

You have notified the AAC world several times, twice recently, that I am on your ignore list. Please keep that promise and ignore me.

You and your side kick don't seem to understand the meaning of rude. Is telling a new member they are on your ignore because of a minor misunderstanding list being polite?
 
Top