Change word "Manager" for something more accurate

The second part of this issue is related to http://groups.drupal.org/node/42326, but I'm specifically asking to solve an issue of communication. It is sad to see all the misunderstanding that this word "Manager" generates, even more in non-english groups, taking to the point of generating conflicts.

I only speak English and "Manager" is a perfect word in English for the role. It's a person who manages the group so it makes sense. Like managers everywhere, they are in charge of their section. If there's a word you think would translate better, what is it?

Michelle

To me, the word moderator means somebody with less powers than a manager; the alternative should be to use site maintainer, and admin, but that would create confusion between users who have particular permissions in a group, and users who have particular permissions in all g.d.o.

I don't mind the "Manager" title at all but I'd really like to see all the group managers appear. Right now it shows the group node's author which is just strange in some groups that have multiple managers.

There's supposedly a distinction between "managers" and "admins" but I don't buy it.

I think "group admin" would be the most accurate - these are the power to change the group page, alter taxonomy, etc.

I'm not sure we will ever find a perfect word. For me "manager" did feel wrong. That word has so many connotations and especially has a hierarchical one which is out of place on a more "doocracy" community like ours.

• Coordinator
• Organizer
• Manager
• Moderator
• Admin

It seems these words are all tainted in some way and seem "perfect" to others...

I don't like the idea of making it configurable. That feels like a ux pain.

I submitted an issue, Make "Group organizers" block configurable, which was postponed pending a discussion here. That issue was the result of several vigorous discussions in the LA Drupal community and appears to have broad support in Los Angeles.

This issue actually comes down to three interrelated issues, which each deserve some discussion.
1. "Group organizers" is not an accurate description of the role these admins play. This has caused a great deal of confusion and contention in our community and I expect we are not alone. There should be a saner default for this label.
2. Because you will never please every group with any one label, this label should be configurable on a per-group basis.
3. There are some compelling arguments suggesting that in some cases it would be better to remove the block all together, so there should be a way for group admins to disable this block within their group.

Why not "organizers"?

Quite simply, the term "Group organizers" does not fit the function of the people listed. The word "organizer" implies that the people listed are organizing the group's activities, but that is not necessarily the case. For instance, there are many people organizing monthly Drupal events throughout Los Angeles, but that has no relation to managing the GDO group. A far more appropriate term would be "Group moderators". That accurately describes the function of the people in that role, without implying any additional responsibilities they may or may not have to the group at large. Having an administrative role on GDO and having a leadership position in an off-line group are two very different things which should not be conflated. The only consistent thing you can say about any GDO group admin is that they have the authority to moderate discussions in their group, so that is the only thing their title should imply. Designations of additional responsibility or points of contact can be handled elsewhere.

Why make it configurable?

As I said, you will never make everybody happy with a single label. More importantly, I see no compelling reason not to make it configurable. In the issue queue, Greggles suggested that the group admins "...have specific permissions/responsibilities on g.d.o and I think it's important for usability we have a consistent title for them across the site." I respectfully disagree. If different groups call their admins moderators, organizers, leaders, managers, facilitators, coordinators, or even just admins, I think the users of those groups will be able to figure it out. The bigger danger is using a title for admins of a group that doesn't make sense within the context of that group. Calling the Los Angeles group admins "organizers" has caused no end of confusion and conflict.

Why make it optional?

Several people have pointed out that the mere existence of this block, what ever the title, implies that the people listed are "in charge" and have power that they may not actually have. They become de facto gatekeepers. This can place an undue burden on these admins, forcing them to deal with inquiries which they really aren't responsible for, but also an undue advantage, since any business inquiries are likely to be filtered through them. There is a strong sentiment in our group that if someone needs help, they should post a discussion in the group. That way it's open to the community to engage, including any admins, keeping everything fair and transparent. In the case of an event, you always have at least one organizer listed and, assuming they have contact forms turned on, they can be contacted directly. Or better yet, users can once again just post a comment. We even discussed the possibility of posting an email address on our group page that would forward inquiries to all admins simultaneously, while obscuring their identities. This would give people who feel they absolutely must contact an admin by email the ability to do so, without putting individual admins in the spotlight.

Basically it comes down to trusting all group administrators to act in the interest of the community. That includes providing appropriate introductions, instructions and points of contact for their group, in order to minimize confusion and improve the user experience. But we should allow them to configure their group in a way that makes sense within the context of the group, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

As a UX designer, I tend to like consistency, but in this case I think that consistency is hurting usability more than it's helping.

As I understand it, the purpose of this website is to support Drupal communities, whether they're regional groups, subject groups, or working groups. It also must deal with big groups, small groups and everything in between. I think the discussion to date makes it abundantly clear that these different groups often have very different needs. I for one trust that each group's admins ultimately want to provide the best user experience they can for their members (new and old). I also assume that they know far better than I what would provide that good user experience for the specific audience they serve.

So, I'd like to ask what problems people are trying to solve with this consistency? As it is, when I view different groups on the site, they look pretty different from one another. If we were to implement the features as I proposed and every group could hide or customize their admin block, what exactly do you think the negative impact of this change would be, both on GDO as a website and on its webmasters?

I would just like to reiterate my position (from another thread). I feel very strongly there needs to be at least one (call them what you like...) ambassador in the upper right corner of each groups page. My personal experience is that I may have never attended my first Drupal meeting had I not been able to easily reach out to someone in the group, communicate about the group via email, find a meeting and feel I "knew" someone upon going to the meeting.

I haven't heard a sufficiently good reason for disabling this block except that the semantics used to describe these ambassadors (or organizers) might lead to some small amount of confusion or hurt feelings. That's not a good enough reason to remove this point of contact.

I think the interface for this could be very simple. Just a "Group contact block title" text field and a "Group contact block content" text area.

The "Group contact block title" field would have a sane default, but could be customized, if needed.

The "Group contact block content" field could default to a token that renders the standard admin list. That way admins have the option of using the list as is, using the list with additional text explanation, or completely replacing the list with their own content.

If you make these required fields, you can easily encourage the inclusion of some point of contact for the group, even if users aren't listed by name.

Personally I'm not sold on the use of "Ambassadors" for the LA group, but I don't want to get too much into that discussion in this forum. Needless to say, the system I'm proposing would allow for these people to be called Ambassadors, or Moderators, or the Welcome Committee, or stick with the current default. And you could use the default list, or make up your own list (with separate titles), or get rid of the list and just add some text. It would not allow for the block to be hidden all together, as we discussed, but you could alter the block enough that it was effectively hidden. For LA, I would suggest something like this...

Group Contacts

If you have questions about LA Drupal, we encourage you to post them to the group. You can also post comments on a specific event, or contact that event's organizer. If you have any problems with this group, please email moderators(at)ladrupal.org.