Your
comment above is my first indication that my existing subgroup
established under the temporary “Premium” membership purchased to get my
groups transferred from Yahoo would disappear if and when we exercised
the promised option to revert to a free group, i.e that it would not be
“grandfathered”.
As you say, that feature may
not have existed because there was no need for it. Since you now appear
to have above defined a “new consideration”, my current response would
seem both reasonable and appropriate.”
In a word, no. I am not concerned with the ability to create subgroups being “grandfathered”. You have made that clear.
Your recent pronouncement/interpretation that a group choosing to to “revert” to “free” (non-premium) status at then end of a “Premium” period must accept deletion “after a delay to ensure that the downgrade wasn't an inadvertent mistake on the part of the group owner” raises a new concern, that of ongoing survivability of any subgroups thus created.
I have been on
Groups.io since November and yesterday is my first awareness of such retroactive intent. To my knowledge this was not mentioned in earlier discussions addressing a “Premium” group’s right to revert to a “free” group. Please consider:
Fact 1: We who purchased a year of “premium” status to get one or more groups transferred from Yahoo were promised the option to revert to “free” status at the end of the (paid) year.
Fact 2: Once my main group was “up and running” I exercised my “Premium” option to create a subgroup. I then requested
Groups.io transfer everything (except members) from another Yahoo Group, and made all members of the main group members of the subgroup. Fact 3: This subgroup transfer was done without further charge and successfully accomplished.
For
Groups.io to retroactively impose a requirement of ongoing “Premium” membership to preserve existing subgroups does not seem ethical. The ability of a “free” group to create subgroups means nothing if one must maintain “Premium” status to preserve them. Such subgroups should be “grandfathered”.
Fact 4: Of late it has been suggested that it is only a matter of time before a 1GB data limit applicable to the combined “storage” of a main group AND it’s subgroups, i.e. “collectively” be imposed; the present reality of each group and each subgroup having individual 1GB data limits being the result of ongoing difficulties of implementation, .
Fact 5: Anyone at present can create a new “free” group at any time with a 1GB data limit. Accordingly I would ask:
Are our respective existing 1 GB data limits “grandfathered” against retroactive change? I am concerned that any .5 GB data ”budget" limit thus retroactively imposed on one group with a subgroup could threaten the ability of each to function in the long term. If not, I have stated a desire to create a new “free” group with its own 1 GB data limit with the intent of moving everything presently in my existing functional subgroup to it. That would (a) assure each group would survive, and (b) have their own 1 GB data limit.
Alternately, perhaps another 1GB data could be made available at nominal annual expense for “free” groups needing it.
Respectfully,
WRB
—
