Stephen Lau wrote On 04/26/07 00:16,: > The consensus so far seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of "Advocates"
Seems to be, I agree. >> Part of that merger conversation was the suggestion of migrating the >> existing user groups into individual projects so each group would have >> its own project space. Currently, each group has a list and a set of >> pages in the UG community and, as a result, there are about 100 >> leaders/editors in the UG community, which is somewhat messy. I'm not >> sure, however, if the new project creation proposal being discussed by >> the OGB would fit for use with user groups being projects. Any >> comments on that? Any merger of the UG and Marketing communities will >> have to deal with the issue of what to do with the 50 or so individual >> user groups. > > > My personal opinion is that we can still have the individual UGs be > classified as projects, and then endorsed by the merged Advocates > community. Ok, cool. So, for naming, what would you suggest? Do you want them all listed on the projects page under their abbreviations or their full names? And should they mix in with everything else under whatever their first name is alphabetically or be grouped together under "UG [name]"? So, UG Argentina OpenSolaris User Group AOSUG UG Atlanta OpenSolaris User Group ATLOSUG UG Silicon Valley OpenSolaris User Group SVOSUG ... (50) or so more ... Something like that? By putting "UG" in front, they should all be listed in one block on the projects page just like they are on the discussions page http://opensolaris.org/os/discussions/. Otherwise, they'll be spread out among all the other projects. Jim -- Jim Grisanzio http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
