On 03/17/2010 03:53 PM, Dan Rue wrote:
> I'm opposed to a dynamic site.  Here's why:

  I can't say I disagree with any of your points there.

> I suggest (albeit without being willing to assist with it :), a static
> site that simply introduces our group and provides links to more
> information (mailing list, facebook group, linkedin group, etc).  Use
> those other social tools to provide member directories and dynamic
> content.

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=127022&trk=anet_ug_grppro

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2353254972

  In case anyone was curious.

> For instance, you can have a static site, but include a twitter result
> for the search phrase #tclug (or other keywords).  This way it has fresh
> content, but isn't a security risk, requires no maintenance, and doesn't
> immediately fall out of date.

http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23tclug

  I like the angle on using Twitter.  I've pre-emptively registered a 
"tclug" account, which I'll be happy to share with/hand off to 
responsible parties.

  While "Web 2.0" technologies (to abuse a buzzword) are all fine and 
good, I agree that we do need to evaluate whether there's sufficient 
reason for us to maintain our own environment, particularly with the 
babysitting they require (security, breakage, etc).
  For my part, I'll likely go with whatever the TCLUG Powers That Be 
think is best.

      Jima

(tclug.org DNS BOFH)