I'm with Everett on this one.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
A possible solution:
If there are two Owners then it would need both of them to press the red button and kill the
Or That the remaining Moderators have a vote to put the group on hold, change its name and
keep the archive etc and start again, or to kill the group .
On 24 Aug 2017 at 23:02, Everett Kaser wrote about :
Subject : Re: [beta] Dealing with Terms of Se
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 07:43 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
It's my content in the files and the wiki, it's my work putting the groupThis has drifted a bit from the original thrust of this thread, so I'll make this one last post in an attempt to bridge the chasm of communication, and then I'll shut up about it. I've stated my position and really don't have much more to add.
together and maintaining it, it's my money paying for premium, it's my rules,
it's my knowledge that I have chosen to share with members, it's my time that
I have chosen to give to them, and it is simply my group. Period. I'm very
surprised at you, Brian, for thinking at all otherwise,
However, from what you state above, it sounds like YOUR group is essentially a glorified blog (not denigrating its content or your efforts). If you create all of the content and its just there for others to read without contributing themselves, then certainly you're the only person who should determine if it remains available or not.
BUT... many groups (all of the ones to which I belong) are "group collaborations," with massive amounts of information posted by MANY different people, and that should give them some 'ownership' (lowercase 'o') in the group should the Owner (uppercase 'o', and I agree with Brian that the nomenclature is not the best) decide to leave for parts unknown. You said elsewhere "It's my living room. The members are my guests..." That's not a good analogy for MOST groups that I've seen. It's more like you the owner went into the wilderness, built a town-square, invited others to join them and build their homes and businesses around the town square, then you decide to move on and you tell everyone else, "I'm leaving, you all have to leave too, and I'm knocking down all the buildings NOW."
I don't quite understand why you have trouble seeing the collaborative nature of most 'groups'. Perhaps your groups are NOT collaborative, and in that case, I can see your point. Otherwise, it seems selfish and short-sighted.
Anyway, I've made my comment for Mark's consideration. I don't feel I need to continue to defend it further. Either he'll find interest in the idea or not, and I have more important work to do. :-)