90p Admin

I think we should add in 5 or 10 users who have expressed interest to our group as beta testers to see whether we're forgetting or overlooking anything.

I'm good with that. Who are they and how will we identify them in message threads?

We'll add them to the four external groups I am creating. We'll know them because they will show as External Contributors (I think they get segregated) and their icons will also show with the grey X in the lower right.

Who is David Overholt then? Is he a new member? He popped up in the thread with a new photo but I don't recall ever seeing the name before...

Yes he is one of the trial members who we started admitting before (or while) we were considering the best way to secure the group. We have probably 8 or 9 trial 90 Minds members. I'm suggesting to @RobertWood that we convert those people to external contributors and put them on paid status.

Hmmm... some of them (like Gary Feldman) are already contributing in other threads besides support. Maybe Gary is the only one though?

I think so -- we can discuss the people who are likely full member candidates. I think that Gary is. My primary criteria for evaluation is whether people contribute, make an effort to contribute.

David is with Bob Kuhlmeyer (sp?)'s group.

I think that's probably a pretty crappy thing to do to the ones who had recently signed up. The ones who have participated, like Gary, should be given the opportunity to move into being a full 90 Minds member, and boot the rest who have been around for the summer to the External Contributors group. We should give the newbies a fair shake (90 Days). My .02.

I'm ok with whatever you decide - just trying to streamline

I agree on Gary. He's definitely a keeper. Not sure who the other new ones are, maybe that's why they aren't big contributors :)

I understand. If it were me on their side, I think I'd be bothered. Do we have a sign up form for the External Group yet? Do we have a name for the External Group besides the External Group? I liked @PeterWolf's OASIS acronym. Vrakas-Blum was one of the ones who applied and were rejected on geography. I guess that would be a test of how this whole idea shakes out.

I have a sign up form that I'm working on. I was thinking we'd provide it after the web seminar on 9/21. So far as naming goes I am finding the 90 Minds brand to be very helpful in marketing myself. So my vote would be that whatever we do we don't allow non-members to call themselves 90 Minds and/or use the logo. I think we tend to underestimate the importance of this group. Maybe: 90 Support 90 Collaboration 90 Share 90 Technical Or just 90 Minds Associate for external and 90 Minds Member is our full member

This was @PeterWolf's suggestion: 90 Minds OASIS (open access support is swell) to add to the list for consideration.

I prefer to keep people away from being able to use the 90 Minds brand until they're proven to be active contributors. I would prefer that we brand it somewhat generically because there's a potential that a lot of people will sign up and never be seen again. I'm trying to avoid having a 90 Minds member competitor sign up, slap a 90 Minds logo on their web site and then use the appearance of full membership as a marketing tactic. Whether that happens or not I don't know but I'd like to steer clear. However I'll leave it to you guys to decide on naming..

I like the OASIS thought. Just OASIS. Preserves the 90 Minds name for full fledge members.

So there you go: The OASIS.

The OASIS leads to the promised land of full 90 Minds membership.

A watering hole of support in the middle of the Sage Tech support desert!

Love it!