On 02.08.2013, at 22:21, Erik Huelsmann <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mikkel,
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Mikkel Høgh <mik...@hoegh.org> wrote:
> On 24/07/2013, at 23.08, Erik Huelsmann <ehu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mikkel, Chris, Marjan, Chris,
>>
>> My view on the matter is the following: We have really no idea about the
>> size of the LedgerSMB community. Even if that may be reasonably big or
>> growing, the number of active contributors seems to be stable and limited.
>>
>> While I appreciate the fact that different people like to use different
>> channels of communication and collaboration, I don't think it's wise to
>> spread the efforts of these contributors more thinly.
>>
>> As examples of how hard it can be to stimulate new contributions: neither
>> the new ledgersmb.org site nor my book effort have spurred new content
>> contributions. As a consequence, I'm more inclined to want to concentrate
>> than to disperse communication. By the wat, to mitigate the problem of
>> "answers getting lost in history", there's a google searchable archive at
>> http://archive.ledgersmb.org/.
>>
> Well, that is pretty much also my sentiment. I would like to replace the
> current forums with Discourse, which, at least in my opinion, is a vastly
> superior user experience, and has all sorts of clever tricks for encouraging
> participation.
>
> My secret hope would then be that the community might get to like Discourse
> so much, that it could eventually displace the mailing lists altogether :)
>
>
> I've given the issue some more thought. Since you say you're targetting new
> users, opening Discourse forums would seem not to be cannibalizing the
> existing community: instead, it would be expanding into previously
> non-existing groups. Assuming great success of the Discourse forums, the
> existing community might (will) move (if and when those forums become the
> main channel of communication).
>
> In other words: you may be wrong to think that opening Discourse forums will
> be splitting the community and - as shown by some of the reactions in the
> thread - the existing community may not be the group to target by asking them
> to move.
Well, my concern on splitting the community was more in regard to the currently
existing LedgerSMB forums (ie. those found at http://forums.ledgersmb.org/ ). I
don't think it makes much sense to have two forums :)
I don't know who decides on what the official forums are, but I don't think
there should be more than one.
> As far as the fact that mailing lists and other SourceForge resources are
> very 2000-technology, you're probably correct: some of the projects which
> newly started, have used Google Groups as their forum/mailing list software
> and GitHub to host the sources. However, I've seen very few projects with
> long SF history move to new infrastructure: after all, all the historic
> backlinks have built up to point to SourceForge. That's an important factor
> as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite!
It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production.
Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ledger-smb-users mailing list
Ledger-smb-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-users
