Thank you for your comments and contribution. I think there are many people who express their opinions about the website in ways that are hurtful because they simply are not thinking about all the hard work that has already gone into it. Web sites are really the worst, you never please everyone, everyone has their own opinion (you know the saying), and it is a THANKLESS job. And yes, for the people that have invested their time as a volunteer to be subjected to constant criticism... it does feel like a punching bag. Who wants to sign up for that?
That having been said, I appreciate all you hard work on the site, and hope that you will tough it out and continue to help us with it. We need your help!
I completely agree with many of the things you're talking about above. I will be at the meeting. I will explain the mission and who this site is pitched to. We can discuss it because ultimately this is a do-ocracy and the people doing the work are the ones who should have a major stake in what it looks like.
As you say, it is hard to put everything we're doing at the top level. It turns into a clusterf*ck. So we're pursuing a strategy of separating out different functions into independent web sites. There was quite a bit of grousing about having a separate THINQubator web site, but actually it was the very smart thing to do. It addresses a specific constituency and provides them with the information and chrome that makes it inviting and useful. You did an excellent job with that site, and I think it is a great example of what we should be doing as we move forward.
SPECTRVM is very important, but it is a specific constituency within the COG, and so it makes sense to have that as a separate web site. I have Mackenzie Wall designing and implementing that site. The Hackathons are also going to have a separate web site, because they will have their own look and emphasis, and have a different lifecycle and objective. Holy cats! 4 web sites for the TVCOG?!? WTF you might ask!
But if we employ this strategy, then we can break down the problems of layout and audience and SEO in ways that optimize for each of the constituencies we're trying to serve. Trying to make one site that serves all will end up serving none and leading exactly to the kind of Facebook punchbaggery we've been putting up with.
Ok, already drifting into the TL;DR range. We'll discuss this on Wed.