5/ But now we’re wondering if this is all too convoluted and dividing ppl up into narrow categories requiring active mgmt and access control
Conversation
6/ Should we just have a single Forte Labs slack channel and single online forum, perhaps with channels/sections of each of those reserved for BASB partic, where we give them special attention?
5
4
7/ I’ve heard that 1k ppl is rule of thumb for critical mass for online community. Putting them together would yield group of 800. Once critical mass is reached, maybe offshoots will even be self-sustaining as well
2
2
8/ This might also make it easier for small groups to self-organize. Likely that niches exist across different products
3
9/ Downside is that very different kinds of conversations will be going on in one place. Some using terms that will be unintelligible to others. Or on very specific topics
1
10/ What are some best practices or recommendations on how to manage this? Should we do big tent surrounded by smaller tents, or just lots of medium-sized tents?
5
1
1
Replying to
Yeah this is overkill. Create boundaries around trust contours not theme.
1
3
Replying to
Hm interesting. I guess the distortion is that there are access levels depending on how much they’ve paid. Which is very different from how engaged they are
1
1
Replying to
I can see its limitations. Access level is better “priced” by time/attention spent, not money spent
2
1
Replying to
It’s just not worth managing at low unit economics is my takeaway from similar issues at Q lab.
Replying to
Yes exactly. So much little bitty gritty stuff. Makes me just want to leave everything open and let everyone fend for themselves
2

