Received from J_Catlady at 4/3/2019 01:16 PM UTC:
I have skipped over many further comments and arguments about my suggestion in this thread, and this will be my final comment. The irony is overwhelming! I make a suggestion for a simple feature that Mark can take or leave: a suggestion box so that people can send suggestions to Mark outside of beta when and if they so desire. And look at the result: it is exactly what I suggested this addition to product in order to avoid. Extreme, disproportionate backlash.
Yes... but only for a definition of "extreme disproportionate backlash" that translates to "any opposition to or refinement of your ideas."
Mark said the following only a few days ago:I don't think a discussion on whether a proposed feature would be bloat/useful or not is terribly productive and I would appreciate it if those were not to happen. I think it can also be intimidating for some people who would like to propose/discuss new features when they see other people being told that their proposed features are bloat or otherwise not appropriate. Like Groups.io itself, I want beta@ to be welcoming for people of all experience levels.
I see NOTHING in what Mark said that forbids discussion of a proposal, only that comments that it's bloat or useless aren't appropriate. I see NOTHING forbidding discussion aimed at refining the proposal so that it better meets the need as the majority see it while avoiding unwanted and undesirable consequences. And if I'm not reading that correctly, then Mark needs to clarify... because your interpretation is tantamount to cutting off ALL discussion by hiding the very existence of future change/enhancement proposals.
I appreciate all feature proposals, even if I can't get to 99.9% of them. :-)It seems that people have forgotten. Does everyone arguing against the suggestion box think they are entitled to hear the suggested features/improvements that every groups.io user has in their head and takes the trouble to propose to Mark? Do you think that every groups.io who wants to propose a suggestion should be required to join the beta group?
When those proposals potentially affect us all, YES!
Is the product even still *in* beta test, for that matter?
While the product isn't still in beta, the group name remains "beta" if only because - as you should know - there's a huge potential for confusion when changing a group name. The group name is irrelevant to this discussion.
That said, when suggestions ask for features that the proposers seem to deem as being significant missing features, it sure isn't a final product. And with a "freemium" business model, not involving group owners in discussion of changes proposed by other group owners doesn't strike me as the best approach to the widest possible satisfaction with the product.
It's yet another simple suggestion. An addition, perhaps an enhancement. That's for Mark to decide. Everyone who is arguing so vehemently against it only proves my point for its need.
The argument here against it is sparked by a desire to not be cut out of the discussion of things that potentially affect us all. The only thing I find surprising about the opposition to the suggestion is that it's been as polite as it has.