StlRuby, StlRails, StlRuby-Rails - Input needed from ALL available Steering members
Mike Sullivan
This message is a followup regarding my announcement about the StLRails group that Jeff and I have started to flesh out.
Our interest in making a "Rails focused" user group is to capitalize on the community interest in Rails so our group will grow and stay relevant, not to faction our already small Ruby User Group. To avoid the appearance of factioning, we probably should have presented the idea to the StL Ruby meeting beforehand...but we didn't, so this e-mail will have to do.
Jeff and I were originally thinking that it would be best to try having a few StlRails meetings before merging with StlRuby, so it didn't seem like we were hijacking our current format, but after listening to the feedback from the steering committee members, it appears that factioning of the group is of more concern. Because of this, I propose the following:
Here are the reasons in favor of converting the group:
1: Mark has been asking us to look for another place to host our meetings for some time now.
Jeff works at RGA, so he was able to secure a meeting room there, but only on Mondays.
2: The 2nd Monday of the month seemed to be one of the few days in the month that didn't already have another user group meeting scheduled.
3: We've been having trouble getting the critical mass of users lately to keep good topics going from one month to the next; the new focus & advertising should help that out
If the Stl Ruby Steering Committee decides that they want to move to this new format, here's what I propose:
1: Use the same user group addresses, steering committee members
2: Focus on re-branding and advertising in new ways to gather the rails community interest.
(topical code or experience based presentations to attract larger groups, consulting company swag/food, blog and/or other web presence to make people want to come participate / contribute / learn from us)
3: Since we want the format to be several shorter presentations per meeting, there will still be plenty of room for Ruby topics.
4: New time and place (RGA the 2nd Monday of every month)
This is a totally open discussion, so please weigh in with anything from: " this sounds terrible; do what you want to but this group is going to keep meeting at OCI"
to: "I love it, let's go ahead and move meeting location & time starting 2 weeks from now ".
I hope this turns into an exciting new opportunity for our group to grow, but I'm open to any ideas....after all, we are all users in this group, and I see no reason why we can't stay as one group.
Thanks,
Mike
Curt Hibbs
Curt
Craig Buchek
think having a Rails-specific group is a valid idea, which will have a
(at least slightly) different audience.
This sounds a bit like the difference between the UNIX and Linux
groups. There's a large overlap in members, and the difference between
topics is sometimes subtle, but there's a different feeling to the
meetings. Plenty of people come to one or the other, and plenty come
to both. Both groups (and more) are run by the same group of folks
(SLUUG) with different people in charge of each meeting. We often
think of it as 2 sides of the same coin.
Another thing I'd like to see is after-meeting get-togethers. After
LUG and UUG meetings, a lot of us go to a restaurant. The
conversations there are much more varied, and often even more
interesting than the official meeting discussions.
> 1: Mark has been asking us to look for another place to host our
> meetings for some time now.
I think we should address that issue separately. Perhaps we could have
the Ruby meetings on the 4th Mondays at RGA? How about a public
library?
> 3: We've been having trouble getting the critical mass of users
> lately to keep good topics going from one month to the next
Most of the groups in town have been having this problem. The RUG has
actually been pretty successful attendance-wise. We've packed our room
a few times -- I suspect that some people haven't come back due to
that. I wonder if 6:00 might be too early for some folks too.
> 1: Use the same user group addresses, steering committee members
Following the SLUUG model, we'd have a single steering committee, but
2 web sites. (Although we might consider having stlrails.org redirect
to rails.stlruby.org to maintain branding of the larger group.) I'm
not sure about mailing lists -- probably just 1, since questions will
often span both sides.
If it turns out that we cannot maintain 2 separate groups due to low
attendance, I don't see a problem going back to 1 meeting per month.
Perhaps have that meeting alternate between Rails and pure Ruby
topics. But I think we should try 2 meetings.
Craig
Curt Hibbs
Curt
Jeff Barczewski
I prefer sticking with the original idea of 2 separate meetings. I
think having a Rails-specific group is a valid idea, which will have a
(at least slightly) different audience.
I agree.
Denver has both types of groups and they do great. One mailing list, two user groups.
In addition to the stl unix and linux groups, stljug and gateway jug are both java related and they co-exist because they have a different focus and user level.
> 3: We've been having trouble getting the critical mass of users
> lately to keep good topics going from one month to the next
I think it mostly depends on what happens at the meeting, the topic, the networking, ...
It can be influenced by time and day but often I believe the more significant factor is whether the users are interested in the topics and perceive value from the meetings.
If the marjority is not interested in a topic or if they don't perceive enough value, then attendence will die off.
However we can easily poll users for start time preference, it is a tradeoff, start early get home earlier, start later you are out later. Either of these parts of the equation can be the problem, but we can find this out pretty easily.
If it turns out that we cannot maintain 2 separate groups due to low
attendance, I don't see a problem going back to 1 meeting per month.
Perhaps have that meeting alternate between Rails and pure Ruby
topics. But I think we should try 2 meetings.
That's what I was thinking. We can see how it goes and then adapt accordingly.
Another couple reasons to have separate group:
Ruby people and Rails people are different communities. Yes there is some overlap, but there is a whole class of people using Rails who really don't know much Ruby, nor do they care to learn about it (beyond the basics), they just want to build their web apps. And surprisingly they can do quite a bit with only learning a small amount of Ruby. So the focus and tech level of each community can be quite different.
Obviously I think that the best Rails developers will know Ruby extremely well too, but there is a whole class of developers that just want to learn the basics to get their job done.
So their is a potential for these two groups to have different followings in addition to focus. The tech level may be broad in one and focused in the other, I don't know. I do know that across the country these communities are somewhat different from what has been said at the various conferences I have attended.
Also, I envision doing potentially two Rails topics each night, so that pretty much kills the meeting topics for the meeting. And there are enough Rails topics to go into next year without duplication. So going with one meeting effectively kills the Ruby topics for the meetings. I didn't want to hijack the Ruby meeting for an all Rails format, so that's why the idea of separate meetings seemed like something we should at least try, otherwise there won't be time for any Ruby topics.
PSS. I know John can't make Mondays, but Monday is really my only good day, so I had to go with that since I plan on doing so many presentations. Maybe the Ruby meeting can be on a night when all (or most) of the interested people can attend.
If we try the two group approach and cannot sustain both, then we can evaluate based on those interested what should be done, but I think this something we just have to try and see where it goes.
Jeff
Curt Hibbs
On 6/27/07, Craig Buchek <Craig....@gmail.com> wrote:
I prefer sticking with the original idea of 2 separate meetings. I
think having a Rails-specific group is a valid idea, which will have a
(at least slightly) different audience.
I agree.
Denver has both types of groups and they do great. One mailing list, two user groups.
In addition to the stl unix and linux groups, stljug and gateway jug are both java related and they co-exist because they have a different focus and user level.
Yes, but they have larger communities that are able to sustain multiple groups. I don't think we are there yet.
Curt
Craig Buchek
I agree. There are plenty of Rails developers that would not consider
themselves Ruby developers. My advice for Rails newbies is to NOT
spend time learning Ruby, except for the 10-page appendix in the Agile
book.
I started with Rails, which got me interested in the larger Ruby
community. So I like to attend the RUG meetings, even if it's not a
Rails topic. Others may not feel the same though; I was probably at
that point a year ago. So I think having a semi-separate Rails group
would actually bring more people into the Ruby community, by letting
them start on the Rails side, then see that we also have a Ruby side
when they're ready for it.
> I didn't want to hijack the Ruby meeting for an all Rails format, so
> that's why the idea of separate meetings seemed like something we
> should at least try, otherwise there won't be time for any Ruby topics.
I think this is the dilemma Jeff and Mike were trying to address. They
didn't want to step on toes by commandeering the Ruby meeting for too
many Rails topics. Unfortunately, some RUG members feel that toes were
stepped on by starting a Rails group without some prior discussion.
Not much can be done about that now, but I feel that they see that now
and are trying to make up for it with this discussion. And it sounds
like they'll accept the advice and decisions of this steering
committee.
> PSS. I know John can't make Mondays
We should try to keep the Ruby meetings on Tuesdays then. Should we
look into libraries? The closest ones to our current meeting location
are Thornhill (on Fee Fee), Bridgeton Trails, Rock Road, Headquarters
(Lindbergh near I-64), and Daniel Boone (Clarkson near Manchester). If
we think that's a good idea, I can go check on available dates at
various locations.
Craig
John McClenning
I think it's fine if we want the group to become more Rails focused, but I'd caution against making it Rails-Only or splitting into two groups at this time. My gut feeling is that there would not be enough interest in a Ruby-Only group at this time and, like Curt said, I believe that it would wither and die.
Maybe I'm wrong. We should poll the user community and see what they'd like to do. After all this really is a User Group by the users for the users.
John
John McClenning
On 6/27/07, Craig Buchek <Craig....@gmail.com> wrote:
I prefer sticking with the original idea of 2 separate meetings. I
think having a Rails-specific group is a valid idea, which will have a
(at least slightly) different audience.
I agree.
Denver has both types of groups and they do great. One mailing list, two user groups.
In addition to the stl unix and linux groups, stljug and gateway jug are both java related and they co-exist because they have a different focus and user level.
I really don't think we have enough of a user base to sustain two groups. I'd rather see us focus on providing a single group dedicated to the topics that most, if not all, of the users are interested in.
> 3: We've been having trouble getting the critical mass of users
> lately to keep good topics going from one month to the next
I think it mostly depends on what happens at the meeting, the topic, the networking, ...
It can be influenced by time and day but often I believe the more significant factor is whether the users are interested in the topics and perceive value from the meetings.
If the marjority is not interested in a topic or if they don't perceive enough value, then attendence will die off.
However we can easily poll users for start time preference, it is a tradeoff, start early get home earlier, start later you are out later. Either of these parts of the equation can be the problem, but we can find this out pretty easily.
As stated we've been struggling for speakers and good topics. If we want to focus on Rail and there's a large number of topics and speakers, then by all means lets focus as a group in that area. At a later date, if it's deemed necessary, we can focus on a different Ruby area. Who know what the next big "Ruby Thing" will be, it may not even be Rails based. Or, if we've reached a critical mass and the users are interested we can look into spinning off other Special Interest Groups.
If it turns out that we cannot maintain 2 separate groups due to low
attendance, I don't see a problem going back to 1 meeting per month.
Perhaps have that meeting alternate between Rails and pure Ruby
topics. But I think we should try 2 meetings.
That's what I was thinking. We can see how it goes and then adapt accordingly.
Another couple reasons to have separate group:
Ruby people and Rails people are different communities. Yes there is some overlap, but there is a whole class of people using Rails who really don't know much Ruby, nor do they care to learn about it (beyond the basics), they just want to build their web apps. And surprisingly they can do quite a bit with only learning a small amount of Ruby. So the focus and tech level of each community can be quite different.
Great! For now lets work as a group and focus on Rails if that's what the group is interested in. But we can still leave a little room for some of the other Ruby topics, even if it's just a small part of the meeting every other month or so. If the members are truly not interested in the non-Rails topics then, by natural selection, they would not be suggested for topics and wouldn't have speaker volunteers.
PS. I also like the idea of some after functions like meeting at a restaurant for continued discussions.
Great Idea! Even at the current meetings I find myself talking with the fellow members outside the building for an hour or so after the meeting has officially ended.
PSS. I know John can't make Mondays, but Monday is really my only good day, so I had to go with that since I plan on doing so many presentations. Maybe the Ruby meeting can be on a night when all (or most) of the interested people can attend.
Mondays during the summer months aren't really a problem for me so I should be able to easily attend 3 maybe 4 meetings. The rest of the year will be tough but I'll make as many as I possibly can. In any case the day and time of the meetings shouldn't revolve around any one person, they should based on what's best for the community at large. If I can't make it, so be it, I'll live and I'll be happy with the one's I'm able to attend.
If we try the two group approach and cannot sustain both, then we can evaluate based on those interested what should be done, but I think this something we just have to try and see where it goes.
At the risk of repeating myself, I suggest that we focus on Rails as one group and we only spin off to another group if we find that the non-Rails topics are more frequent than we expected.
John
Mark Volkmann
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Saint Louis Ruby Users Group - Steering" group.
To post to this group, send email to stlruby-...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to stlruby-steeri...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stlruby-steering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---