Connections 2.0 allows users to build up a list of colleagues via an invite system, a la Facebook. When I first heard about this I thought it was pretty cool, but having actually used it for a while now, I think there's a fundamental flaw with the implementation - there is no incentive to either build your colleague list or control it. Or to put it another way, you have nothing to gain by inviting someone to be your collegue, and nothing to lose by accepting an invitation from someone else. In order to make this feature meaningful, Connections needs to provide incentives to users to both build and control their colleagues list.
If you agree or disagree with what I've written above, I'd really appreciate it if you could vote on that. Below are a couple of ideas I had which might help this issue, but I'd much rather people voted on the problem above, and commented on the potential solutions below.
Tagging - Connections Profiles 2.0 introduced the concept of profile tagging, which is great. However, the way it was implemented means that anyone can tag anyone else's profile. I really don't understand why this decision was taken - the only way to prevent it is to disable profile tagging altogether, which seems a bit extreme. What if you could only tag a user's profile if you were on that user's colleagues list?
Activities - by default all activities are private - what if being on somebody's colleague list gave you access to their activities? By that I don't mean having all your colleagues activities in your own activities list, but rather having the ability to navigate to one of your colleagues' activity list. Obviously this would require the ability to mark activities as private if you don't want your colleagues to be able to see them.