Comments on: Pushing for more groups http://otenth.org/2007/12/21/pushing-for-more-groups/ The virtual life of Otenth Paderborn Mon, 07 Mar 2011 02:26:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Klaus Wulfenbach http://otenth.org/2007/12/21/pushing-for-more-groups/comment-page-1/#comment-2985 Klaus Wulfenbach Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:32:29 +0000 http://otenth.homefries.org/2007/12/21/pushing-for-more-groups/#comment-2985 <i>What I would be even more interested in seeing than a simple raising of the ceiling is a differentiation of the group function into “announcement only” groups, “conversation” groups, and “land-management” groups. </i> Now that's a good idea. Has anyone opened a JIRA to this effect, or are you planning to nominate it as a new feature? I would, of course, vote for it. KW What I would be even more interested in seeing than a simple raising of the ceiling is a differentiation of the group function into “announcement only” groups, “conversation” groups, and “land-management” groups.

Now that’s a good idea. Has anyone opened a JIRA to this effect, or are you planning to nominate it as a new feature? I would, of course, vote for it.

KW

]]> By: Otenth http://otenth.org/2007/12/21/pushing-for-more-groups/comment-page-1/#comment-2983 Otenth Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:58:04 +0000 http://otenth.homefries.org/2007/12/21/pushing-for-more-groups/#comment-2983 Baron, thank you for commenting upon my JIRA plea. Not knowing the technical details, I haven't formed an opinion of what a reasonable increase in the number of groups might be. I would think that a modest increase would be sufficient for most reasonable purposes. What I would be even more interested in seeing than a simple raising of the ceiling is a differentiation of the group function into "announcement only" groups, "conversation" groups, and "land-management" groups. Perhaps it would even be sufficient simply to create a single new category of announcement-only groups, with a fairly high number of groups allowed. Conversations and land management might be allowed to continue to coexist in the current groups. It is somewhat amazing to me that a platform often touted by its creators as a social environment should have such inadequate communication options. Not only are there the limits in number, but other basic abilities are sorely curtailed. The current setup is supposed to include the ability to create and vote on proposals, but as I recently discovered after trying to run an election, this function has been broken for some time. Baron, thank you for commenting upon my JIRA plea.

Not knowing the technical details, I haven’t formed an opinion of what a reasonable increase in the number of groups might be. I would think that a modest increase would be sufficient for most reasonable purposes.

What I would be even more interested in seeing than a simple raising of the ceiling is a differentiation of the group function into “announcement only” groups, “conversation” groups, and “land-management” groups. Perhaps it would even be sufficient simply to create a single new category of announcement-only groups, with a fairly high number of groups allowed. Conversations and land management might be allowed to continue to coexist in the current groups.

It is somewhat amazing to me that a platform often touted by its creators as a social environment should have such inadequate communication options. Not only are there the limits in number, but other basic abilities are sorely curtailed. The current setup is supposed to include the ability to create and vote on proposals, but as I recently discovered after trying to run an election, this function has been broken for some time.

]]> By: Klaus Wulfenbach http://otenth.org/2007/12/21/pushing-for-more-groups/comment-page-1/#comment-2982 Klaus Wulfenbach Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:38:24 +0000 http://otenth.homefries.org/2007/12/21/pushing-for-more-groups/#comment-2982 Herr Duke, what do you think is a reasonable number? I know I have seen some people say in commentary that three-digits-worth is absurd, but where to draw the line further down? (Personally, I think 40 might serve well, but that is only unless/until I get there.) Yrs., Klaus Wulfenbach Herr Duke, what do you think is a reasonable number? I know I have seen some people say in commentary that three-digits-worth is absurd, but where to draw the line further down?

(Personally, I think 40 might serve well, but that is only unless/until I get there.)

Yrs.,

Klaus Wulfenbach

]]>