Thanks for creating an opportunity to settle this, makes sense to come up with something more fitting.
Let’s focus the naming and ignore technical details for now.
The definition (still to be refined) of COP is: Project structure discussion – Neos Sprint 2015 – Frankfurt
In addition to that, we’ve discussed that some COPs will be well defined while others more vaguely defined. I’d suggest that we only keep track of members for the well defined ones and make that visible. There might actually be a need to distinguish between the two, since COPs have responsibilities, but certain topics could have shared interests but no desire for those responsibilities.
Some COP examples:
- Brand
- Marketing
- Product strategy
- Operations
- Product strategy
- JavaScript
Some topic examples:
- Domain Driven Design
- User experience
- Elasticsearch
- Cloud hosting
- Hosting
- Postgres
- Redis
There should never be a topic channel and a COP about the same field and the natural progression would be to transition from a topic channel to a COP, when they start having regular meetings and solving tasks together.
We should strive to limit the amount of these to have ones that are active on a “regular basis”, but allow them since it benefits the community in general.
Then we additionally have project channels at the moment. I’d suggest we try to incorporate those into the structure, so we don’t have four different things. I see the existing ones usually have burst of activity, and should probably be topic channels instead.
Some project examples:
- CKEditor
- Taxonomy
- Red carpet
- Decisions
- Symfony Flow
I not sure how many different definitions we need or if the COP need to be more flexible to cover more of them, however it influences the naming since all those we decide to have should be named in a way that makes sense together.
Other possible names:
- Squad (military)
- Guild
- Community
Personally think Guild is very fitting as replacement for COP
One suggestion could be:
-
Team
-
Topic
-
Guild