Comments below in “< >”.
On Feb 16, 2020, at 10:19 AM, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:<Whether this sentence is started with the word “probably” or “possibly”, it is personal speculation which does not serve to move the discussion further toward resolution. It presumes Mark does not prioritize suggestions in terms of those he deems most urgent.
I think Mark is very aware that there are “back burner ideas” and “more urgent problems” in his “suggestions” pile. Our discussions here on [beta] seem to be OUR only current way to help him perceive that resolution of THIS problem (of monitor-owner demotion or removal) is a “more urgent” one.>
<No. Presently the description next to the selection box does not properly and fully disclose and warn that this selection allows a moderator so empowered to demote or throw out an existing owner. You agree below that a “moderator should not be able to ‘demote' an owner*.Either THAT option should be deletedNo, it needs to be REFINED.
“Refining” this option such that there is full and proper disclosure merely informs an owner of the danger implicit in checking that box. It does nothing to eliminate that danger. I think this checkbox option needs to be deleted or disabled immediately.
Then, as time permits, an option to allow those related privileges as are NOT disruptive could be added back as deemed necessary or beneficial. This more complicated task should be of lower priority.>
We seem to all agree that a *moderator* needs to be able to appoint another *moderator*, but should not be able to *demote* an *owner*. The problem is that both fall under the same privilege now<I respectfully disagree that there is any consensus whatsoever “...that a *moderator* needs to be able to appoint another *moderator*.>
the power for a moderator to demote an existing owner should be removed
<Please. “…(senior) owners don’t yet exist.>Once this is done, it is not necessary to appoint co-owners who would thenWhether a (co-)owner should have the power to demote a (senior) owner is a different matter.
My opinion is that (s)he shouldn't have that<Once more we’re diverted down a rat hole of speculation because we don’t yet have “…(senior) owners.>
, and I'm on the fence on whether a moderator should be able to demote another moderator<I think this privilege should be reserved to the owner (or perhaps a “sub-owner” if we create such)>
<One size does not fit all. Groups with restricted membership have a much higher monitor work load in day-to-day function than those (like mine) who let anyone join. I neither need nor allow moderators to appoint moderators. That needs to be reserved to “upper management” function. How “lower management, i.e moderators with greater or lesser powers, do things is each group’s obligation to work out for themselves.>A moderator with all other owner powers can keep a group functional indefinitely.If (s)he can appoint another member to moderator and give him/her the necessary privileges, yes