@berit I just created / moved around the categories according to your suggestion. That probably can work out, but what struck while looking at the categories overview is, that the whole structure is now optimised for us, the Neos team: we have first-level categories for subjects like “Marketing”, “Fundraising” and “Tools & Operations”.
These topics are not so relevant for Neos & Flow users, and for them we only provide one major category (Using Neos & Flow).
Is it okay as it is or should we try to find a structure which is better suited for non-core people?
I could imagine to put the Neos Team relevant categories below one main category I currently can’t find a good name for… (ETA: Ah maybe something like “project organization”)
I agree that it would be nicer to not fill up the main categories with stuff only the team might be interested in.
I’m still fine with the category selection so far, but I’m wondering where we would put discussions which are only relevant to members of a specific project / initiative (like: Red Carpet, Website Relaunch or development of a market place solution). Would that Justify a new Category “Projects” / “Initiatives”?
As for communication within a “group” (ops group, strategy group etc), we should just use the respective category below “Neos Project”.
brand-group => perhaps “Branding” under (The) Neos Project, or “Marketing & Social Media”?
website-group => would this go in “Tools & Operations” or “Marketing & Social Media” or …?
What do you think, did I map the purpose of the channels/categories well?
I think a category for short-lived projects could make sense… Doesn’t discourse have additional tagging features? Perhaps a project consists of a tag for a set of posts instead of a top-level citizen in discourse like categories. We would just have to make sure that those project tags can be applied by anybody, including newbies to include them in projects like redcarpet. (I think)
I think the difference between the channels and the categories in your mapping is that your Slack channels tell who is supposed to communicate in the channel and the categories state what should be talked about in the respective category. The former is more exclusive than than the latter, or to put differently, the latter is more inviting for the general public to join the conversation.
It could be that focussing on groups instead of topics makes sense for Slack, but on the other hand I feel like having a more intuitive mapping so you understand each channel right away when you know the Discourse categories.
As for the tagging feature: could be nice as an additional taxonomy, but I wouldn’t like to use exclusively.