[BW-dev-discussion] Advanced group features - proposed long ago

Thu Jun 4 13:15:30 UTC 2009

@Peter: Hierarchy is inferior to relationships, I agree. Even in case of geo
groups. It is true that France is part of Europe, but what about Russia?
Links links links.

This is a wikipage that sumarizes much brainstorming on the topic:
http://bevolunteer.org/wiki/Group_and_Forum_structure_proposition
(I cleaned it a little bit for it to be up to date)

Julien

2009/6/4 Peter Lind <peter.e.lind at gmail.com>

> A few comments, inline :)
>
> 2009/6/3 lemon head <lemon.head.bw at googlemail.com>:
> > And now, to something completely different :)
> > Mostly directed to Peter.
> >
> > Now that we have Peter's group application online, I had the idea to have
> > a look back on some old discussion in the forum, where we talked a lot
> > about group features.
> >
> > I think all of you are familiar with how groups work on CS or other
> > networks, and I think we can reproduce a lot of this 1:1 in bewelcome.
> > Thus, we don't need to waste time talking about common features.
> >
> > I heard that Peter is already thinking about some new features for the
> > current group system. I imagine some of the old ideas can be helpful for
> > that.
> >
> > As an answer to all of you who will tell me this belongs in the BW forum:
> > We already had similar discussions both in BV and in BW forum, and I
> don't
> > think we would get anything new and helpful bringing this up again right
> > now. So, let's talk about technical and conceptual possibilities here,
> and
> > then we can get back to the members.
> >
> > Hey, and please forgive me for referencing myself a lot! (see below)
> >
> >
> >
> > == Limitations of group creation - my personal nightmare ==
> >
> > There have been long discussions about this question, which luckily seem
> > to be finished now. I just would like to bring it up again, because it
> was
> > important for me.
> >
> > Roughly, these were the alternatives discussed:
> > 1) Groups are created by volunteers, if they agree on it. It really hurt
> > me to read this.
> > 2) Creation of groups needs an application procedure, where you need to
> > find 10 people who agree with the group creation, and explain how it
> helps
> > the BW mission.
> > 3) Free group creation as in most social networks, possibly with some
> > moderation for really criminal or dangerous cases. This is what I think
> > the current group system is designed for. Thanks so much for saving me !!
> >
> > There have been technical reasons for 1) and 2), but a lot of people were
> > defending policies like these as a desirable permanent solution. Main
> > motivation being to avoid "nonsense groups", that don't contribute to our
> > mission.
> >
> > Some links on this subject:
> > (Sorry for referencing myself so much)
> > http://www.bevolunteer.org/forum/index.php?topic=869.msg7087#msg7087 (in
> > "New Groups")
> > http://www.bevolunteer.org/forum/index.php?topic=303.msg7079#msg7079 (in
> > "Groups")
>
> Groups are open to create for anyone - and you can create anything.
> There are group admins that can change and delete groups if something
> is "too extreme" (by whatever definition is decided upon if one isn't
> already). However, localised groups are not yet ready. When they are
> built people WILL NOT be able to create a localised group (that is,
> you will not be able to create the London group). Because localised
> groups should exist for all places and be open to everyone. Hence,
> I'll most likely just build localised groups for all known places that
> we have BW members for - and whenever someone signs up to a place with
> no other members, a new group will be created.
>
> >
> > == Custom Fields for Group Membership ==
> >
> > Now, this is a funky thing.
> >
> > The group admin (the member who started the group, or some moderators
> with
> > special rights) can define custom fields that can be filled by every
> group
> > member. Typical (naive) examples: Which instrument do I play, what is my
> > favourite food, etc.
> >
> > Some of these fields could be predefined for special group types, such as
> > "shared living space" (I live here permanently, I am a frequent guest,
> etc)
> >
> > Some of the custom field values should be translatable - so it would in
> > fact be:
> > memberId x groupId x fieldId x languageId -> value, or
> > memberId x fieldId x languageId -> value, if the fieldId implies the
> > groupId
> >
> > The custom fields could be displayed on people's profiles, and thus make
> > them more interesting (shown to fellow group members, or to everyone)
> >
> > And, there would be one place in the member preferences where a member
> can
> > edit all the group membership fields.
> >
> > http://www.bevolunteer.org/forum/index.php?topic=1060.0 ("Group
> predefined
> > options")
> > http://www.bevolunteer.org/forum/index.php?topic=692.msg7078#msg7078 (in
> > "Membership application for groups")
> >
> >
> > An interesting and smart way of using this:
> > - A big group of musicians with some custom fields.
> > - Some smaller groups of musicians, who invite their members to join the
> > bigger group for the sake of the custom fields, so they don't have to
> type
> > it all again for every little group they join.
> >
>
> I'll have to think about this one. It does make sense (my gut-reaction
> is that it doesn't but after thinking about it somewhat I'm inclined
> to agree) to have but it definitely needs to be done properly.
>
> > == Relations between Groups ==
> >
> > I'm not sure if that is already part of the current system.. It could be
> > useful if groups with a similar subject can create links to each other -
> > something like "friend group" or the like. Maybe these links could even
> > have parameters themselves, defined by the
> >
>
> It's not a part yet but something I've been thinking about. In the
> sense of "relations between groups" NOT a hierarchy of groups. I'm
> firmly AGAINST groups and subgroups and will not implement it - if
> that's needed somebody else needs to take over groups. But I'm happy
> about relationships between groups
>
> > == Shared Logic for Meetings and Groups ==
> >
> > A lot of what we discuss for groups could also be useful for meetings:
> > membership parameters, relations between different meetings, relations
> > (with parameters) between a group and a meeting...
> >
> > They could still be stored in separate database tables, but with some of
> > the logic being recycled. Or, they could have some info in the same
> table,
> > but with additional (parallel) tables storing those fields that only
> apply
> > to meetings, or only apply to non-meeting groups.
> >
>
> I don't agree on this - only a minor subset of the logic makes sense
> for meetings and groups if you ask me. But they need to be stored
> differently, conceptually they're completely separately and we'll
> screw up the DB model if we store them in the same place.
>  That said, groups and meetings obviously tie in - groups can host
> meetings, for instance. So, whenever I get around to creating a
> meeting tool, I'll tie it in with groups :)
>
> > == Event Notifications based on Group Membership ==
> >
> > This is something I originally proposed on the couchsurfing brainstorm
> > group, see
> > http://www.couchsurfing.org/group_read.html?gid=429&post=3002931
> >
> > Well, the headline says it all..
> >
>
> I'll extend that one to "... based on group AND locality membership".
> And it's something I'm planning
>
> > --------------
>
> Some other things on the drawing board: allowing for group admins
> within a group (group owner can assign group admins so it's not a
> 'one-leader'-group), changing group ownership, categories for groups
> (and everything else, really).
>
> > Cheers,
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bw-dev-discussion mailing list
> > bw-dev-discussion at bewelcome.org
> > http://bewelcome.org/mailman/listinfo/bw-dev-discussion
> >
>
>
>
> --
> <hype>
> WWW: plind.dk
> BeWelcome: Fake51
> HospitalityClub: Fake51
> Couchsurfing: Fake51
> Flickering at: www.flickr.com/photos/fake51
> Generally: Fake51 or kaFe15
> </hype>
> _______________________________________________
> bw-dev-discussion mailing list
> bw-dev-discussion at bewelcome.org
> http://bewelcome.org/mailman/listinfo/bw-dev-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://bewelcome.org/pipermail/bw-dev-discussion/attachments/20090604/f6ade3d0/attachment.htm 