Category talk:CommunityMember

There is something here that rubs me the wrong way. I see the community working together and to have a CommunityTeam separate doesn't feel right. We are not only here to support and facilitate community growth at this, and all, wikis. But we are part of that community and that community is part of us. The community team as staff is a limited way to view this. I have been processing this for a few weeks and am still working at it. Best, MarkDilley

Everyone, I've talked with Mark about his thoughts above. The name of this page was not intentional or well-thought-out. When Ray broke the company into "departments" it made sense to me that these were "teams". Not sure what the other company groups decided to name themselves. I do think it's impotant to have a way to talk about the staff whose focus is community. At least it is for now. So maybe Community Staff or something like that? Maybe we don't need a page for this group of people. Maybe the email list (with name changed) would be enough. I would prefer that we call this area simply "community" rather than community team. Our prioritized tasks would thus be community tasks. TedErnst | talk 12:40, 26 September 2007 (PDT)

Great as this brainstorming really is, I don't see why we have to name community team differently. As I see it, there is still a difference between Community and Community Team. Everybody editing AboutUs whether anonymously or otherwise, but more specifically the logged in users are part of the community - the point here being that most of these people are interested only in working on a couple of pages on AboutUs. But when one opts to work on projects or tasks whose purpose is to enrich wiki and make an improvement in it so that it becomes useful for other community members, one actually becomes part of the community team. So the prerequisite for becoming part of the community team is to work on projects/tasks which in someone's own view are important for improving wiki. In this sense, Nathan, Bryan, Ted, Mark, Obed, Misha, DannyG, Simon etc are all part of the community team but "User:XYZ.com" who is interested in working only on "XYZ.com", although he is still a community member is not a part of the community team. Secondly, having a "community" to work on projects rather than a "community team" devolves responsibility unto a larger, impersonal group which - maybe I am wrong - results in losing one's interest in a project. The psychological impact of "Team", at any rate, is more efficient than of a larger impersonal entity. Asad | *~talk~*

I agree with Mark. I am sure this was not intentional, but the name "CommunityTeam" does feel a bit non-inclusive. I am not sure I really understand the distinction Asad made between community and community team. But from what I understand his definition of community team maps quite well to ActiveMembers. If that's the case, then maybe we could move this page to the ActiveMembers/CommunityMembers category page. And also add the tasks on that page to make it easier for community members to take part in them. Thoughts? Obed Suhail

Active Members are not the same as Community Members. Could someone explain the difference? Maybe that would help us here? TedErnst | talk 14:00, 27 September 2007 (PDT)

I'd have liked our discussion to reach a conclusion before this move. Maybe I need to think a bit more over it. Asad | *~talk~*

What I have heard expressed is this: Anyone who shows up is in the community (reader, builder) --> Anyone who does a number of things that we consider active (PersonalPage, ConsensusPoll, RecentChanges peer reviewer, ...) --> CommunityTeam ~~ MarkDilley

Yes Mark, I agree that whoever shows up is community and whoever becomes involved in other things that you've mentioned above is Active, but what I am still unable to see is why we can't call them Community Team rather than the Active members. To me, Community Team is much more specific and useful. Category:CommunityMember just does not say anything to me, especially if you see it in relation to Category:Active Member. They seem to be interchangeable in most of the places. If our goal is to keep them distinguishable, Community Team is a better choice. Thoughts? Asad | *~talk~*

I agree that "Community" is the larger concept, meaning all folks that interact wit the site. But within community, people may be "active" or "not as active", and "staff" or "non-staff". Not sure where that leaves us from a naming perspective. Another thought is that over time "staff" will comprise a smaller percentage of the overall "community" and will be seen more as people who help our community. - Ray | talk

Moved part of this conversation to CommunityDefinitions. MarkDilley