Received from J_Catlady at 9/30/2018 11:23 PM UTC:
I don't consider the no-email approach disenfranchisement.
OK, so if you don't like that term, what else would you call denying subscribership to "via email" subscribers that's both accurate and doesn't translate to the same thing?
I have no comment or opinion one way or the other on your approach. I could see implementing both. In my approach, moderators would have options for control over various aspects of member subscriptions, including display name and delivery method.
Yes, but... my approach includes a mandatory display name selected by the subscribers... who are the ones in the best position to pick one they like. And as for delivery method... that aspect is unimportant under my approach unless you want to disenfranchise "via email" subscribers by denying them delivery via email. I don't much care that that latter is offered to an Owner as an OPTION, but under your suggestion as stated previously it's the ONLY option. That's total disenfranchisement of "via email" subscribers. I don't care if group owners want to do that on a group by group basis, but I would object to Gio making it the only option.
Quite frankly... and I could be wrong... but I don't see Gio implementing either option any time soon. Yours is exclusionary and mine is fairly complicated.
So it's really a different kettle of fish and could be implemented even without the anonymous group concept,
I don't understand the significance of that last part, but never mind.