Who is wagn.org for?

[Ethan McCutchen]

John Abbe opened a great inquiry.  Here was the original frame:

I see wagn.org as having two primary audiences/users - potential Wagn clients, and the Wagn team (who use it for ticketing, etc.).

Those two audiences are certainly key, but I'd like to propose a pretty different vision for wagn.org, in which the primary audience in the near term is very similar to the people on these mailing lists: wagneers and developers.  To my mind, these folks really comprise The Wagn Community.  That's not to say the community doesn't rely on lots of other folks, but it seems to me like most of its members are generally going to be at least one of those two.  And wagn.org needs to be about supporting and growing The Wagn Community.

Oddly enough, I actually think we'll better serve "Wagn clients" and "the Wagn team" by treating them as secondary audiences for now.

A thriving Wagn community will certainly involve a lot of clients, but they're not just clients of any one organization.  We need lots of different businesses and individuals to be making a living by offering Wagn-related services in targeted ways, much as Wordpress and Drupal consultants do now.

Right now, "Wagn clients" probably largely suggests "Grass Commons clients" to many of us.  I don't want to codify that into wagn.org.  For example, GC has decided to focus on serving foundations with their knowledge challenges, but other Wagn service providers will likely focus on very different needs, and I don't think it makes sense to have wagn.org focus on a lot of foundation messaging.  We can create another site for that.

As we move forward, my hope is that Grass Commons will increasingly get out of the consulting business altogether and focus on (a) the software core, and (b) supporting and connecting a thriving community of Wagn consultants and creators.

That's not to say we shouldn't keep potential Wagn clients (anyone's potential Wagn clients) in mind. We want them to go to wagn.org and see a clear vision, professionalism, community involvement, etc.  In fact, we want to make sure anyone can go to Wagn.org and get a pretty clear understanding of what wagn is.  Imo, the home page should say who we are in a way so clearly and crisply that it can serve as both an introduction to strangers and a way for the community to remind itself what it cares most about.  Yeah, we've got a ways to go yet to get there, but that's the goal :)  

As for "the Wagn team" (which I'm taking to mean people devoting a substantial portion of their time to the Wagn project), I definitely want wagn.org to serve them (us) well, as they'll likely continue to be the main contributors.  I'm only pushing back against the idea of them as a primary audience in the sense that my hope is that most of the content we create will be made digestible for a broader audience of wagneers and developers.  It's not that we want to deny access to the more complex conversations -- we don't.  But I do think we want to work to keep from pushing inner circle conversations on newbies.  Including people in wonky conversations prematurely is ultimately exclusive, in that it makes people feel like they don't belong.

I wanted to put that out there before responding more concretely to John's suggestions.  

Thoughts?

--
Ethan McCutchen

One of the Wagneers, Wagn.org

Wagn. How pioneers roll.

s: ethan.mccutchen

t: @intogreater

[John Abbe]

Sounds perfect to me.

Life,
John

At 3:22 PM -0600 5/21/12, Ethan McCutchen wrote:
>John Abbe opened a great inquiry. Here was the original frame:
>

>I see <http://wagn.org>wagn.org as having two primary

>audiences/users - potential Wagn clients, and the Wagn team (who use
>it for ticketing, etc.).
>
>
>Those two audiences are certainly key, but I'd like to propose a

>pretty different vision for <http://wagn.org>wagn.org, in which the

>primary audience in the near term is very similar to the people on
>these mailing lists: wagneers and developers. To my mind, these
>folks really comprise The Wagn Community. That's not to say the
>community doesn't rely on lots of other folks, but it seems to me
>like most of its members are generally going to be at least one of

>those two. And <http://wagn.org>wagn.org needs to be about

>supporting and growing The Wagn Community.
>
>Oddly enough, I actually think we'll better serve "Wagn clients" and
>"the Wagn team" by treating them as secondary audiences for now.
>
>A thriving Wagn community will certainly involve a lot of clients,
>but they're not just clients of any one organization. We need lots
>of different businesses and individuals to be making a living by
>offering Wagn-related services in targeted ways, much as Wordpress
>and Drupal consultants do now.
>
>Right now, "Wagn clients" probably largely suggests "Grass Commons
>clients" to many of us. I don't want to codify that into

><http://wagn.org>wagn.org. For example, GC has decided to focus on

>serving foundations with their knowledge challenges, but other Wagn
>service providers will likely focus on very different needs, and I

>don't think it makes sense to have <http://wagn.org>wagn.org focus

>on a lot of foundation messaging. We can create another site for
>that.
>
>As we move forward, my hope is that Grass Commons will increasingly
>get out of the consulting business altogether and focus on (a) the
>software core, and (b) supporting and connecting a thriving
>community of Wagn consultants and creators.
>
>That's not to say we shouldn't keep potential Wagn clients (anyone's
>potential Wagn clients) in mind. We want them to go to

><http://wagn.org>wagn.org and see a clear vision, professionalism,

>community involvement, etc. In fact, we want to make sure
>anyone can go to Wagn.org and get a pretty clear understanding of
>what wagn is. Imo, the home page should say who we are in a way so
>clearly and crisply that it can serve as both an introduction to
>strangers and a way for the community to remind itself what it cares
>most about. Yeah, we've got a ways to go yet to get there, but
>that's the goal :)
>
>As for "the Wagn team" (which I'm taking to mean people devoting a
>substantial portion of their time to the Wagn project), I definitely

>want <http://wagn.org>wagn.org to serve them (us) well, as they'll

>likely continue to be the main contributors. I'm only pushing back
>against the idea of them as a primary audience in the sense that my
>hope is that most of the content we create will be made digestible
>for a broader audience of wagneers and developers. It's not that we
>want to deny access to the more complex conversations -- we don't.
> But I do think we want to work to keep from pushing inner circle
>conversations on newbies. Including people in wonky conversations
>prematurely is ultimately exclusive, in that it makes people feel
>like they don't belong.
>
>I wanted to put that out there before responding more concretely to
>John's suggestions.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>--
>Ethan McCutchen
>One of the Wagneers, Wagn.org
>
>Wagn. How pioneers roll.
>
>s: ethan.mccutchen
>t: @intogreater
>
>

>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "Wagneers" group.
>To post to this group, send email to wagn...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>wagneers+u...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/wagneers?hl=en.