On Tue, Nov 29, 2016, at 08:43 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Hi,
On 11/29/2016 01:04 PM, Lailah wrote:
> On 29/11/16 18:48, Huiren Woo wrote:
>> (Fun fact: I do know some people are against having
meetup.com
>> <
http://meetup.com> because it is proprietary)
> Hi! One of those people here! o/ Isn't there another tool doing the
> same but open source? That would be nicer.
We are in the initial design research stages of putting together a
feature for Fedora Hubs called Regional Hubs that would hopefully
provide this capability. If you have thoughts on the features that are
most important to you as ambassadors, please reply to me and Suzanne
(our Outreachy UX intern working on the feature) and let us know!
While
meetup.com is proprietary and there are great reasons to use a
free alternative, one of the primary features of
meetup.com is that it
has an active user base. This is not just a features question, in other
words. Not all markets respond to
meetup.com (or similar services)
equally. In markets where
meetup.com has high levels of pentration a
free alternative may match it feature for feature but not actually
result in any impact.
I believe we should consider how we can best attract an audience to the
alternative before we refuse to consider using
meetup.com at all.
As for the original question, about a group Fedora account. Can someone
do research on what the cost savings are for a group account versus just
buying individual meetups in individual cities. I have been told there
is no significant cost savings. If there isn't then I believe
approaching the regional ambassadors group to request funding is all
that needs to be done. Again, I would encourage you to demonstrate that
meetup.com is the social/meeting site with the highest penetration to
help justify the selection.
None of these sites or features is going to magical create users,
participants or contributors. The content and awareness still has to be
there.
regards,
bex