Context MatterHarold, I appreciate your comment about the natural lifecycle of communities. "End "does not necessarily mean failure. And I'm nodding in vigorous agreement with "If more communities are built around the way that people naturally work and socialize then that 90% failure rate might drop." (Do you know where the 90% failure rate data comes from? Was it Bill's experience? Or some research?) However, I think that we really havent' figured out how to do that for diverse groups of people. I also am not sure what an "unused community of practice" is. Do you mean a site set up for a CoP? Because for me, the CoP is the people, not the tools. A very vibrant CoP may never use it's tools, or it may.

I want to test the waters here with your statement "It is not necessary to go "inside" a community space." Do you mean this as a generalization? Because I think there are times when going inside some boundaries affords a kind of experience that some communities need. Not every person, group or culture can find ease in an open, flexible (and sometimes seemingly random) aggregation of personal web pages. This works REALLY well for some, and disasterously for others. In some cases it is even dangerous.

I really want us to think about our statements and understand if they are generalizations that we think apply pretty broadly, or instead a diverse set of options so that communities can consider, choose and invent what works for them. What thrills me now is that we have more options, a bigger palette with which to paint. It is the choice to be open that is powerful, not being forced there.

That said, I want to now learn more about Elgg. I know, I've said this before. I really need to take the time. Push me, ok?

Please keep posting on community issues!