Groups in Second Life are social organizational structures. So what makes a group a group?<\/p>\n
Meta-data is split between what is determined at the time of creation of the group, and data that is descriptive of the group and can be changed at a later time: mission statements, member titles, status on public registers, etc. There will always be a need for this meta-data, as well as a means to control who can change it.<\/p>\n
The organization options for current groups are few, offering only the two-tier system of Officer and Member, and a one-tier system if only the Officer tier is used. A military system of many ranks would be impossible, as would a government system with multiple branches. There needs to be any number of sub-divisions to a group, in whatever inter-relationship that the group requires.<\/p>\n
Permissions are set solely on the status of being either an Officer (full permissions) or a Member (few permissions). Beyond that, permissions are set by the objects and land that are associated with or owned by the group. There is no fine-tuning of who can do what beyond clumping people into one of the two categories. Without that ability, even having more sub-divisions in a group would be limited by the permissions built into them unless groups came with the ability to edit permissions on a detailed scale.<\/p>\n
Group communication is fairly primitive at this time. A message can only be sent live to all group members (regardless of which sub-division they are part of) when they are online. The only way to send a message to all members is to create a vote event, the outcome of which no one cares about. I’ve even seen Lindens use this hack, a sure sign that there is a need for better communications in groups.<\/p>\n
Ownership. This is a true tar pit of (dis)functionality right now. By being able to own objects, money, land, and the abstract of land allocation credit, groups take on the mantle of playership. They become a semi-living entity to the system, but without any one person in control. Allocation, once given to a group, can be taken back at any time by the member that gave it. Land, however, becomes the property of the group and only the Officers can sell or give it away. Groups can own money, but only till the end of the day at which point it is distributed evenly to every Officer and Member — a distribution that can not be changed or prevented. And objects, once given to a group, can never<\/strong> be un-given. Not one type of ownership is like any other. Horribly confusing and inflexible.<\/p>\n So that’s the way things stand. It’s no wonder that Linden Lab is looking for suggestions as to how to clean this mess up and make groups into a tool for creating engaging social organization. Linden Lab took a shot at imagining the needs of future residents when groups were designed, but fell short. But that’s not surprising to me. Even with a larger pool of minds assembling lists of possible refinements and extensions to groups, some needs, and it may even be safe to say most<\/strong>, will still not be met in the end.<\/p>\n You can’t plan for every possible case, so what is there to do? …I have some ideas.<\/p>\n