Feature: rename "hangouts" to avoid association with Google

[lpatmo]

Idea sparked by recent discussion in the #codebuddies-meta channel:

I wonder if when hangouts are being advertised (either on the page or here on slack) if we added a description (I'm thinking something simple and bold: Audio Required - members are expected to talk or "Audio Silenced - members are expected to remain quiet" - or something similar) right after the title of the hangout. Do you suppose something like that would help? (making it "painfully" obvious"? 🙂).
[...]
We need a "sharing" platform that "respects" users and they (the users) need to know we are "different" in that regard. In other words: say we default to "nothing" - no sound, no video, no screen-sharing, then we offer those features as a super-clear on/off UI elements (buttons). --> more thinking out-loud <-- what if we thought about the whole concept of "hangout" as a 3-step configuration process: starting from no. 1 as "most restrictive" (nothing-shared) - as default and moving up to 2 (sound share) and 3 (sound & video). The idea is that the platform (by default) does not "want" to expose the user in any way, and hopefully increasing trust and motivation to create these "hangouts". This brings me to another thought: I think that "hangouts" is a dangerous word for us (codebuddies) - because it is automatically associated with Google. So Google = not-trusting. I feel like the platform (in this particular scenario) misrepresents how much genuine love and desire to help is present in your efforts and even in some others member's motivation - this is the problem with using third party products and one of the strongest arguments for developing in-house tools (in my humble opinion) - subsequently we inherit some of these companies "respect" for their users, people are constantly harassed and stolen from (privacy, money, etc.) - and people's trust. I think we want to ideologically separate ourselves from that "stigma" and say "guys, we REALLY love you, we want to help you... there is no ulterior motive here - we do because we love learning, coding, we love other people who love to code" (kind of thing), you know?

ME: The question this observation raises for me is: what can we call hangouts instead?
@rmorabia: “study groups: the live edition” (half joking)
@angelocordon: live pairing
@sebbel: Buddy Parties, Share Session
@RuubixO: CodeMeets
@eludelogixter: "what if the topic of the session is "shared-sessions" in NodeJS? Then we would have "share-session" share session 🙂"
@wuworkshop: "Since the site now uses Jitsi, Jitsi uses the term “Jitsi Meet”. To be “on brand”, why not call them “CodeBuddies Meet”? That would actually align with the Twitter handle."
@kvie: "I also like shortening it to CodeMeet or BuddyMeet"

One mockup:

Opinions welcome!

[lpatmo]

Mockup 2:

[wuworkshop]

Hm.... what about "CB Meet"?

Random aside, why is the site using a version of the logo without the circle?

[lpatmo]

Hm.... what about "CB Meet"?

Mockup:

Random aside, why is the site using a version of the logo without the circle?

I think the circle logo would be hard to read.

[lpatmo]

Another option:

[billglover]

I like "Meet", please just don't call the list of "Hangouts" a list of "Meetings".

[ArcTanSusan]

How will you eventually decide on a mockup option to execute and what are the success criteria?

[billglover]

Very good question. Our ability to get metrics out of hangouts is somewhat limited. See #1080 for our current challenges with figuring out the number of current users. Any thoughts on metrics that might indicate a beneficial use of the 24x7 hangouts?

[billglover]

See #1070 for tracking of 24x7 hangouts.