CUNY Academic Commons

One that comes to mind is the group wiki plugin, but it requires BP 1.2.

Adding new and interesting WP plugins is fine, as their use is optional, and their effects are limited to individual blogs. We should have a different approach to BP plugins. The adoption of new BP functionality should be undertaken with the following in mind:
- It will be visible to all members of the Commons. For that reason, serious UX considerations are required.
- If it provides a new way to create content, it needs to be set apart clearly from the modes of content creation already in our BuddyPress installation (forums, activity updates, documents, profiles, blogs, and soon to be Docs). Introducing methods of content creation whose purposes and methods largely overlap with existing functionality strikes me, all things being equal, as a bad idea.
- BuddyPress plugins are generally created by individuals and released to the community, out of the goodness of their hearts. For that reason, when we adopt a BP plugin (which, in virtue of the way that we use BuddyPress, almost always means that it becomes an integral part of the site), we must operate under the assumption that our development team (and ultimately I personally) will become responsible for the upkeep of the plugin, should its original developers abandon the project or move it in another direction. This has already partly happened with the groupblog plugin.
- BuddyPress plugins are often mutually incompatible, requiring customization to the plugins and/or to BP itself to keep them running in our already quite full environment.

These are just a few reasons why we should not actively pursue a "let's see what's cool and install it" strategy with respect to BuddyPress plugins. If something comes along that is truly interesting, we can and should talk about it, but to focus large amounts of energy on searching for new stuff does not seem worthwhile. I would vastly prefer if our development strategy was driven by the needs of the Commons community, so that our development is largely reactionary.

As for WP vs BP: I am in a good position to know when there are major events in the BP world. I do not actively keep up with WP plugin development. Scott might be a good person to do ongoing WP plugin scouting.

I think these are important considerations to keep in mind. I guess I'm thinking, though, that we need some kind of transparency here so that I (and others) can know when you've already considered, and possibly rejected as not "truly interesting," BP plugins. For instance, have you already thought about some of the plugins mentioned in this ticket , like Achievements and BP Rate Forum Posts?

Okay - thanks, Boone.