As you claim to be in the business of “building communities”, isn't it more meaningful to tell your questioners what it is that you build. Surely, that must be your definition and the only one that matters in this context.

Been a few days since I have had any chance to read and post on anything so I thought I would start here:)

The distinct qualifier that I see for community is “acceptance” or “membership” criteria. Meaning that one can be a non-participative member as long as the community deems that acceptable.

I do understand your point regarding “relationships” however, we might be applying two different values to that word. It might be possible that we are confusing relationship with interactivity. In my mind one can have a relationship, or a “connection” to another without awareness (i.e. twins separated at birth). No doubt they are related, so much even that many report having similar dreams, tastes, lifestyles, etc.

It also might be that we are employing too many “relative” no pun intended, terms.

Been a few days since I have had any chance to read and post on anything so I thought I would start here:)

The distinct qualifier that I see for community is “acceptance” or “membership” criteria. Meaning that one can be a non-participative member as long as the community deems that acceptable.

I do understand your point regarding “relationships” however, we might be applying two different values to that word. It might be possible that we are confusing relationship with interactivity. In my mind one can have a relationship, or a “connection” to another without awareness (i.e. twins separated at birth). No doubt they are related, so much even that many report having similar dreams, tastes, lifestyles, etc.

It also might be that we are employing too many “relative” no pun intended, terms.

Been a few days since I have had any chance to read and post on anything so I thought I would start here:)

The distinct qualifier that I see for community is “acceptance” or “membership” criteria. Meaning that one can be a non-participative member as long as the community deems that acceptable.

I do understand your point regarding “relationships” however, we might be applying two different values to that word. It might be possible that we are confusing relationship with interactivity. In my mind one can have a relationship, or a “connection” to another without awareness (i.e. twins separated at birth). No doubt they are related, so much even that many report having similar dreams, tastes, lifestyles, etc.

It also might be that we are employing too many “relative” no pun intended, terms.

Been a few days since I have had any chance to read and post on anything so I thought I would start here:)

The distinct qualifier that I see for community is “acceptance” or “membership” criteria. Meaning that one can be a non-participative member as long as the community deems that acceptable.

I do understand your point regarding “relationships” however, we might be applying two different values to that word. It might be possible that we are confusing relationship with interactivity. In my mind one can have a relationship, or a “connection” to another without awareness (i.e. twins separated at birth). No doubt they are related, so much even that many report having similar dreams, tastes, lifestyles, etc.

It also might be that we are employing too many “relative” no pun intended, terms.

to put the discussion on the edge – you say the guy watching the church from home should be considered a member because he can cause the community to grow by informing others – and that his good intentions for the community is enough to grant membership

but if everybody does what he does – stops going to the church and just watch it from home – the church-sermon community doesn’t work anymore. Just like if all members of an online community starts lurking instead of participating…
the “fee” has to be more than just the ability to influence, you have to actually HAVE an influence however small – by exerting your right not to actively participate, you also decline membership – but not affiliation

I hope I’m still making sense

to put the discussion on the edge – you say the guy watching the church from home should be considered a member because he can cause the community to grow by informing others – and that his good intentions for the community is enough to grant membership

but if everybody does what he does – stops going to the church and just watch it from home – the church-sermon community doesn’t work anymore. Just like if all members of an online community starts lurking instead of participating…
the “fee” has to be more than just the ability to influence, you have to actually HAVE an influence however small – by exerting your right not to actively participate, you also decline membership – but not affiliation

I hope I’m still making sense

to put the discussion on the edge – you say the guy watching the church from home should be considered a member because he can cause the community to grow by informing others – and that his good intentions for the community is enough to grant membership

but if everybody does what he does – stops going to the church and just watch it from home – the church-sermon community doesn’t work anymore. Just like if all members of an online community starts lurking instead of participating…
the “fee” has to be more than just the ability to influence, you have to actually HAVE an influence however small – by exerting your right not to actively participate, you also decline membership – but not affiliation

I hope I’m still making sense