[advocacy-discuss] Advocacy & User Groups: The Future

[Rafael Vanoni]

Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> Rafael Vanoni wrote:
>> That sounds like a good way to escalate. I think we could go a little 
>> beyond region-specific lists, at least in places where the community 
>> grows to a large number. Setting up UGs under a country/region portal 
>> would automatically decentralize things. Each country could have its own 
>> core group in charge of voting and creating UGs - as a country's 
>> community reaches some level of maturity (and size).
>>   
> So, would that be the existing portals or a new set of groups?

The existing ones, they are already set and with active leadership.

>> Something hierarchical, OSUGs at the lowest level, then coutry/region 
>> and then advocacy.
>>   
> So, insert the portals in between the UGs and Advocacy? I like the idea 
> of integrating the portals into this mix somehow.
>> Regardless of the overall size of the community, the advocacy group will 
>> continue to handle core discussions and issues. Each country/region core 
>> group would report to advocacy.
>>   
> One of the issues I'm having now is reaching all the UGs via 
> advocacy-discuss. If I have to get all of them for some reason, I have 
> to ping all 60 lists. How do we solve that problem? Of is it not a 
> problem to solve? :)

Well, I don't think it is currently a problem. The constitution is clear 
about this, every UG leader subscribes to advocacy and should receive 
your emails.

The underlining problem is when the said leader(s) are not involved and 
don't convey the message to their groups. In that case, we'd be 
interested in insisting and talking directly to the UG (or something 
like that). But it's a different situation.

In the future, you could delegate it to each country/region's core 
group. They will surely know each UG and their members, maybe 
personally. Getting the message across won't be an issue.


-- 
Rafael Vanoni
rafael.vanoni at sun.com
http://blogs.sun.com/rv