[osol-mktg] Community Consolidation -- Marketing & UGs

[Jim Grisanzio]

Stephen Lau wrote On 04/06/07 13:16,:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 12:40:10PM +0900, Jim Grisanzio wrote:
> 
>>
>>Stephen Hahn wrote On 04/06/07 11:43,:
>>
>>>* Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> [2007-04-05 16:13]:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If we don't put them in a meta-community, though, then we don't really
>>>>have a place for them under the current site structure. I know that
>>>>people want a wiki feature on the site and that's being specified
>>>>right now, so maybe individual UGs can take a wiki page someplace and
>>>>we can remove the UG community altogether. That's certainly an option
>>>>as well. But I agree: the current set up can't scale at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> *cough* Projects *cough*
>>>
>>> My name suggestion (really Simon's from a year ago or so):  Advocates.
>>>
>>> - Stephen
>>
>>
>>
>>Oh, cool, I like that. Ok. :) I'm an idiot.
>>
>>And we can do that right now without any merger or need to propose new 
>>site changes, and it solves the immediate structural problem with the UG 
>>community. UGs can still have their own spaces/lists and still 
>>communicate across groups via ug-discuss. Each existing user group 
>>becomes a project, and new user groups can go through the same project 
>>proposal process currently in place.
>>
>>I like Advocates, too. We now have three possible names: Advocates, 
>>Evangelism, Outreach. I see little consensus for a merger, but if we can 
>>solve the structural problem with the UG community that would go a long 
>>way to making that community more effective.
>>
>>I say we do it. Other comments?
> 
> 
> I'm actually in favour of the merger, as long as the name changes to one
> of those 3.  I like Advocates, but fear it overlaps with the terminology
> of CRT Advocates and RTI Advocates, etc. 

And the notion of making user groups projects?

Jim