John Plocher wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote: > >> Why do we need to make this abstract classification? >> > > For navigation and organizational ease? > > As Jim pointed out, the "problem" with user groups today is that they are > mixed in with all the other Projects on the Projects listing page. One > reason for defining an abstract classification "User Group" is so that > we could have a page that listed all (and just) the User Groups. > The problem of having UGs mixed in with the other development projects listed on the site is extremely minor. That can be fixed with a site upgrade to enable them to be listed separately so the actual dev projects don't have 70 UGs mixed in with them here http://opensolaris.org/os/projects/. I already list the UGs separately here http://opensolaris.org/os/community/advocacy/usergroups/ug-leaders/.
So, that's not my problem. My problem is that UGs are buried under the Advocacy CG in an artificial hierarchical relationship that makes no sense. That's the issue that needs fixing. The mistake here was the creation of the Advocacy CG in the first place. What I should have done was kept the old User Group Community in place but migrated the UGs to projects sponsored by the User Group Community and that would have solved all of my problems at the time. Instead, I had grander plans of merging the old Marketing Community and Immigrants Community (Ben suggested the inclusion of Immigrants) into the User Group Community to create a meta group called Advocacy that would be the center of activities such as conferences, evangelism, articles, PR, marketing, users, user groups, etc. That clearly has not worked out, and I?m not at all happy with the hierarchy and bureaucracy. It's not necessary. The UGs don't need the Advocacy CG on top of them. If the reorg doesn't happen, I can solve this problem with a new User Group Community Group and just re-associate all the UGs to that new CG. The relationship would still be hierarchal (since it would be under the current system), but it would at least make more sense that what we have now. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
