One big driver (for consolidating communities, anyway) is compliance with Oracle's legal and security policies. It's also that some internal communities have been on outdated software, and Jive offers more functionality and reliability at the moment.
As for future plans, one of the things we're doing is reorganizing the taxonomy of the forums to simplify navigation. Other plans include upgrading to Jive 7, improving the UX, adding more communities (such as OUGC which just launched), rewriting the FAQs, finally turning on advanced gamification, and yes, improving the mobile experience. Hopefully we can also turn on the ideas feature and have a suggestion box with ideas you can vote up and down. And hopefully we won't break anything that ain't broken in the process...
Jive offers more functionality and reliability at the moment.
Jeez Monique.... you just made me spit out my drink.
I think one of the most precious features of OTN is the relaxed code of conduct and to be able to speak freely. I mention this because I noticed the Rules of Conduct that also decorate the MOS community forums. In particular the rule not to disparage Oracle or its products makes me wondering and puzzled.
For someone who is not native English speaking, like myself, understanding such rules is difficult. I read the term "disparaging" for the first time and had to look it up in the dictionary. My conclusion so far is that "disparaging" practically means not to mention anything that could be bad advertising for Oracle or its products and pretty much dismisses any criticism. I suspect there are very different opinions about what is considered belittling or disparaging, also very much depending on personal perception and cultural background.
Perhaps it would be good idea to make rules that are easy to understand and not subject to interpretation. I guess even this post could be considered disparaging in a broader sense. Could you please shred some light on this or guide me to a clear source of information? Thanks.
In my views it is a simple issue of meaningless and spiteful criticism, versus constructive criticism.
Using myself as an example. When I criticise Oracle I always try to back it up with evidence and logic, and criticise because I want a better product as customer.
I do not criticise Oracle because I think a competing vendor is better, Oracle's management is stupid, and Larry Ellison full of bs. As that would serve no point and contribute only to meaningless noise.
So I find the Rules of Conduct the norm and logical.
Isn't that rather discrimination?
Not really, it's just to cover themselves against people who claim "freedom of speach" when they're account is terminated because they're just blatting stupid comments like "SQL Server is great, Oracle is Cr@p" around the forums.
You can't just take an isolated rule and you have to look at the whole package. All the rules together are there to try and ensure that people are using the forums for sensible reasons, and if they're being constructively critical about the products such that Oracle can learn and improve their products; whilst helping to remove people who are deliberately just being disparaging without good reason/justficiation.
Well to my understanding referring to "freedom of speech" in this respect could be abuse, as anything else that is meant to disrupt the integrity of a community or to harm individuals. Discrimination in the US is more directly related to gender, religion and race, but can be used or applied in a much broader sense in Germany, for instance. I think the term discrimination is more common and generally understood than disparaging.
In my opinion, constructive criticism is based on personal perception and ability or see the bigger picture. I think criticism should generally be welcome as long as it is not discriminating or using words that are insulting and defamatory.
If someone finds SQL Server is great and Oracle is cr ap, so what? If someone write Oracle is great and SQL server is cr ap, would that be ok? Since when is Oracle a religion? How can you really disparage a product or corporation? I think disparaging the government, a product or corporation can be norm, perhaps even depending on culture. Personally I do not see any issue with that.
However, perhaps depending on what is considered disparaging, if Oracle does not want to see any comments other than everything and everyone is great, I guess a rule against disparaging would do. Perhaps I have a wrong understanding of what is disparaging, but then I'm most likely not the only one. Disparaging also means to belittle according to the dictionary. How many people feel belittled for no good reason?
can learn and improve their products; whilst helping to remove people who are deliberately just being disparaging without good reason/justficiation.
Yeah well "SQL Server is great, Oracle is Cr@p" is just a huge troll so that is perhaps not the best example
I can give an example from my own experience; I've been setting up (and neglecting) a blog about Java Enterprise related stuff and in one article I was talking about Javaserver Faces (JSF) usage; a specific web framework part of the standard Java enterprise specification. Some people love it, some people hate it as per usual. In the comments I get some questions about JSF itself and the topic talked about in the article and as a response to those questions, some guy starts to advise other frameworks which are supposedly simpler and require less work. Those comments I axed; you don't go advertising framework B and C in an article about framework A; you're simply not reaching any audience willing to listen and are as such completely off-topic; people who read that article WANT to use framework A for whatever reason.
In the same way if you go to an Oracle managed forum regarding Oracle products, you have little place there if you don't actually (want to) use them. So from that perspective I can understand the rules of conduct perfectly.
I suggest to OTN management to simply remove this particular rule since it is already covered by other rules and does not need to be outlined, unless Oracle really just want's to cut down any criticism. I believe having such a rule of conduct is overprotective and has too much room for interpretation. I think its mere existence puts a bigger dent in Oracle's reputation than what a possible comment of any individual could possibly do.
Well, no offence intended Dude, but most members join up and don't even read the forum FAQ's or the forum space titles, so I wouldn't get too concerned with what's in the 'rules'. Most people wouldn't actually be aware of what's in there... it's just 'legal' stuff to cover Oracle in the event they need it. Most people do behave, and the trolls etc. are often easily spotted and dealt with.
What people read and do is another story. I agree that most people behave and those who don't are perhaps addressed by the moderators. But I think if Oracle bothers to put out such rules then they should be clear.
It's not that these rules are hidden; they are right there on the front page and leave an impression. It's one of the reasons I decided it is probably better not to participate in some of the MOS community forums. If Oracle employees cannot stand criticism about its products or support, a forum is useless. I have seen the responses from Oracle employees towards those people who were not happy with the new forum software and thought the responses were pathetic. Do they need to backup their actions by making such new rules? Is this already disparaging?
Some rules have the potential to scare those who read and care, who may have something interesting to say, compared to those who do not care. If anyone is wondering why the quality of the forum may further degrade, perhaps here is one of the reasons. Obviously doesn't really affect me though .
I think rules are often overlooked here, but I think it is important to observe the etiquettes of this forum. Particularly since this should be a professional forum, some form of restriction to prevent the 'trolls' must still be enforced
I'll just say someone over there flipped out when I used the term "wtf," insisting it is never appropriate in a professional forum.
And yet, someone I respect and admire, co-founded and later ejected from a major oracle mailing list, posts there and not here. You just can never tell how people will react to rules and the zeitgeist.
Nevertheless, rules should be clear and if possible not leave room for interpretation. Like I said, I have never heard or read the term "disparaging" before and even looking it up in the thesaurus and trying to find examples in Google keeps me puzzled.
Well, perhaps the word "respectless" or "disparaging or respectless" would be easier to understand and less confusing than "disparaging" on its own - if this is what the person making this rule intended.
Unfortunately rules will never be free of subjective interpretation due to the limitations of language. The whole of the legal system is based on writing and re-writing 'rules', yet they're always have to change wording here or there to try and make things more rigid, but never quite get there (a classic example is my bank who, every 6 months send me a new terms and conditions for my accounts, highlighting that they've changed words or statements here or there, but essentially the meaning is pretty much the same).
Yes, "disparaging" is a very generalized term and could mean many things. Taken in the context of rules for the forum, you'd have to assume (and therein lies the problem) that it's referring to messages that are only intended to be critical of Oracle's products and Services but not, as Billy suggests, offer and constructive criticism to allow Oracle to see how they can improve things. It's like the difference between you making all your posts saying how cr@p the Jive forum software is (I know it's not an Oracle product but as an example...)... if you just made those posts saying it was cr@p but offered nothing constructive to help see how it could be imrpoved then you are just being disparaging; however, because you have been constructive in highlighting the individual issues, and offering suggestions for how things need to be improved, then that's not disparaging, it's just constructive criticism.
You'll never get around the ambiguities of language.