Stephen Lau wrote On 04/26/07 00:16,: > Jim Grisanzio wrote: > >> >> Stephen Lau wrote On 04/20/07 02:47,: >> >>> 3.3 Re-classify the following communities as projects: >>> - BrandZ, Xen, & Zones endorsed by Virtualization >>> - 'Chinese Users' renamed to the 'China Portal' project and >>> endorsed by 'Internationalization & Localization' >> >> >> >> The Chinese Users Community came about right after we launched and >> before we even had the initial community/project proposal process. >> Subsequently, three Chinese User Groups -- Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen >> -- formed, and there is now a significant amount of activity around >> them. And we have a China Portal under development with the other >> portals as well: http://opensolaris.org/os/project/portals/ >> >> So, I agree that the Chinese Users Community can be merged but it >> should be merged with one or more of the three Chinese user groups -- >> or become a fourth user group given the geography. There should be a >> pretty tight relationship between the portals and the user groups in >> non English areas. That's what we are doing in Japan. Language is a >> big barrier here, so we have a new portal. But that portal will >> ultimately be maintained by a Japanese user/developer community that >> needs it as a tool to build community in the first place. So, in that >> sense, the China Portal (which is not open yet) can be a major tool >> for each Chinese user group to engage developers. > > > It sounds to me like the 'Chinese Users' community is the broader > Chinese community, so it doesn't make sense to merge with either of the > 3 locality-specific user groups. But merging it into the China Portal > seems to make sense to me as it is more of an umbrella area.
I agree that it "sounds like" that but I'm not sure it's reality. In effect, I think we're talking about the same thing here since the portal project already exists (but isn't open yet) and there is virtually no content from the Chinese Users Community to merge with anything anyway. What I see in that community is 1/2 page of content and a pretty low traffic list. Some of the leaders and list subscribers are the same as the Beijing UG, too. There is clearly a common thread running through the UGs, the portal, and the community -- which is a good thing. Also, the portals do not have their own lists; they talk on i18n-discuss since that list is low traffic and basically contains all the people who would be involved with translations. I can ping some of the guys since I'm already working with them on the portal and get their suggestions. Jim > Would that be okay? > >>> 3.5 Community mergers: >>> - Marketing and 'User Groups' communities merge under a >>> yet to be determined name (currently under >>> discussion in opensolaris-mktg) >>> - Performance & Observability communities merge under >>> a unified 'Performance & Observability' community >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I certainly agree with merging the UG and Marketing communities and >> there is clear consensus to do it: >> >> http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=27547&tstart=0 >> http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=27548&tstart=0 >> >> We need to figure out what to call the new entity, though. Several >> names have been proposed, so we'll have to bring the naming process to >> a closure soon. > > > The consensus so far seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of "Advocates" > >> 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. > > cheers, > steve > -- Jim Grisanzio http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
