This is my final summary, and report to the Community Coordination Team (for inclusion in recommendations to be made to the Project Council) on the xoops.org forum thread entitled: Proposal for new forum structure on xoops.org: Comments invited.
(
https://xoops.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&topic_id=60510&forum=47)
My recommendations are included (in italics) at the end of the report for the Team's consideration.
Section I The Gist. Concerns and issues:
Section II Related but slightly off-topic comments
Section III Conclusions and Recommendations
Section I - The Gist. Concerns and issues:
While the majority of comments submitted to the thread can be summed up as being in broad agreement on a number of points (see below), one of the main areas of doubt and confusion concerns the actual role of xoops.org. Namely, is x.o to play a role in user support. or not.
Several posts stated that, in the writers' opinion, x.o is the natural place for user support and that if the site retains forum categories with titles such as "Support", "Share" and "Complaints" (later proposed to be re-titled "Suggestions"), the site defines itself as a de-facto support site in addition to it's stated role as 'info-hub' or 'Portal' for the XOOPS project.
Another area of confusion, though somewhat assuaged by a number of comments, is the actual identification of those responsible for making and putting into action decisions about the site. Likewise, the identity of those charged with running and maintaining the site once the changes have been made.
One other area that concerns were expressed over was the integration (or otherwise) of the current forums into any new structure. Notifications are used by many of the forum users to keep a track of items of interest and/or expertise, and the possibility of their removal is seen by some to be a step backwards, in as much as their removal might make it more difficult to offer support or keep oneself informed of developments.
Further, the raising of the x.i/x.o division while largely relegated to aesthetics in as much as x.i can easily be redirected to via DNS adjustments if that is the direction the PC feels best to go, has been pointed out as having at least one serious drawback. That of user databases. There is a strong sense of dislike of the idea that using the two sites is going to necessitate multiple log-in names/passwords. Some posts categorically refute x.i.'s "official status", while others (equally categorically) assert it's "official status".
Section II - Related but slightly off-topic comments
Some other worthwhile and interesting suggestions were brought up in this thread. While not directly related to the original title, they nonetheless deserve mention here.
Calls were made for clear identification of official topics for debate. Some contributors to the thread rightly pointed out that this thread needed some form of indication of it's official nature.
The direction of comments in the thread often drifted into the question of the whole make-up of x.o. Several teams reported that they were unable to make contributions despite being charged with a job to do (docs, themes, modules, wiki etc). This was largely put down to there being a perceived lack of trust from the PC, the PC's inability to assign privileges allowing contribution of news items, or even the teams' lack of a contact to whom reports ready for publication can be made.
Some posters called for an official ideas submitting process.
Joomla's site is often proffered as an example of how a x.o. portal might look. It was suggested that a XOOPS wide theme be developed and simple colour variations be employed to distinguish one section from another. There seems to be consensus that "Mor.Pho.GEN.e.sis" should be adapted for use.
Section III - Conclusions and Recommendations:
Before it can make a decision on which forum categories to offer, the Project Council needs to make a policy decision on whether in fact x.o is going to offer mechanisms for entertaining user support requests, or conversely, going to be purely a disseminator of XOOPS related announcements. Once again, we see a lack of clarity about what is "Project" and what is "Community".
Further, the Project Council needs to make prompt, clear and public declarations on the status of x.i and it's future integration or otherwise into the site at x.o. If the PC is going to integrate x.i. into the site at x.o, either as a sub-domain or plain link, it must deal with the issue of the user database. Neither would it make sense to include the "Support", "Share" and "Complaints" categories on x.o. if this is the intention.
I would suggest a forum category be created where new topic creation be available only to members of official teams. Posting permissions would be open to all and the thread initiator would be responsible for it's moderation.
Gaining rights and permissions for teams to put their work in public view is a job for the community coordination team.
The Community Coordination Team has suggested a ticketing system similar to the one used on x.i. Though the availability of forums might make it's initialy proposed purpose of assisting end-users find solutions to problems dispensable, such a system could easily be adapted to include a ticket category for suggestions.
A unified theme and a simple site structure is essential to the future success of XOOPS. and to promote more unification and less fragmentation.
Most contributors to the thread would probably agree on the following:
a) That the pace of discussion and decision making is too slow.
b) That more transparency is needed. Who's doing what and what have they done? (The new monthly PC reports are a good thing.)
c) That there still exists a feeling of alienation bordering on hopelessness as regards Project attention paid to user and team input.
d) That the Project Council needs to address these concerns as a top priority.Crip (Sail Japan)
Community Coordination Team
Never let a man who does not believe something can be done, talk to a man that is doing it.
