I’m not much of a FB user, but, do think it’s a good idea to run an official group. For some people, if you don’t have these types of “supporting” accounts, the project may seem less legitimate. On the other hand, if those presences aren’t maintained, it could make the project look dead. So, I’m torn on it…
In terms of group involvement, I would join the group, or like the page – or whatever they do now – but, wouldn’t necessarily be an active participant.
Success (or failure) with groups is not predetermined – it depends a lot on the content, the management of the group, and the personalities involved. Millions of companies, entities, and outfits use groups with success.
This is a good point. We also need to figure out a way to attract experienced developers to the platform. At this point, James (and others) is/are carrying way too much.
The content of the “Get ClassicPress” page is overwhelming – too many sections, too much text, too many CTAs. It’s confusing. I would love to redesign this section for clarity.
I’m not sure what kind of work it would take – and don’t think we have the resources right now for it – but, having an option to “Click and try ClassicPress” which spins up a performance-tuned site that exists for, say, 3 hours, would be a good way to show potential users/switchers that “Yes, ClassicPress is exactly what you expect!” without requiring them devote time/effort to setting up a local installation.
That’s a valid concern…but, I agree, we will never know if we don’t try. And, since there’s someone willing to help with it, it makes good sense to give it a go.
I agree with this sentiment, generally. However, since @anon66243189 has only just become involved, and he’s offering to help with it, it wouldn’t necessarily spread the pre-existing team any further.