As I begin to confer on multiple Google+ communities, there seems to be some confusion between open and closed communities. When is it advantageous to have a closed community and when is it advantageous to have an open community? What is the best way to deal with transparency today?
I'm sure this is a topic that many in organizations throughout disciplines are grappling with. The advantage of open, transparent communities is that you gain the perspective and vantage point of many, and lots of the curation and critique is done openly and upfront thus creating a more tailored, discerning process of creation and share. Yet, some downsides of transparency are that everyone has an opinion and ideas could possibly be misconstrued or inflicted with too many opinions.
If you read my blog, you know I'm mainly a fan of as much transparency as possible as I think that helps us to make the best possible decisions. Yet when it comes to my personal life and family, I generally am a fan of more closed share and privacy with some exception.
Mostly, I believe, that optimal communities are led by clear protocols, goals, and organization. The community is created for a clear purpose. The community's parameters are set early on, and then the community is assessed often and revised as needed.
How do you create your Google+ communities? How do you create parameters and protocols, and what are your assessment and revision routines like? These are important questions as organizations embrace this valuable social media platform.
