Dan Price wrote: > I don't know the answer to the harder questions you raise, such as > governance, but as for where the user group keeps its home page: I don't > see anything (short of breaking off from the existing advocacy > community) which would allow individual user groups to make that > decision for themselves. There's nothing to say that we can't add > a redirect from their existing web property, as needed. >
Sure, if UGs have their own infrastructure off opensolaris.org, we can link to them. But the value of having opensolaris.org is that we can offer a project space and list with relatively little effort on our part and the UG's part. For that, though, we need them to be sponsored by a CG -- which is both a strong benefit, obviously, but an additional layer of complexity that hides the UGs a bit. I'm ok with a .com site with UGs living there (pending the governance issue) but I'm also fine updating the current Constitution and opensolaris.org to be consistent and to consider a new classification so UGs are out from under Advocacy. I don't have a strong position about how to solve the problem, so I'm just bringing it up for discussion. It's not even a problem, per say. It's just exploring options for the next step since I think we have the opportunity to grow much faster in this area. > If need be, the advocacy community should vote amongst itself about > where it wants user groups to be web hosted. Totally agree. And thanks for bringing that up. I do think Advocacy and the UGs will assert a point of view -- I just don't know what that will be :) > Put another way, I would > personally strongly *oppose* having user groups split across two sites. > I'd like to prevent that, too. Either move them as a group with their involvement or evolve them on .org to elevate their exposure over time. In retrospect, I shouldn't have pressed so hard to merge the old UG Community, the Marketing Community, and the Immigrants Community to be the grand home for the UGs. What I had in mind at the time for Advocacy has clearly not occurred. I should have just migrated the UGs to be projects under the then existing User Group CG. That would have been a much cleaner implementation. Oh, well. At least what we have now is still much better than it was last year with UGs as individual pages within a CG with over 150 site leaders all stepping all over each other. We'll get there ... Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
