On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 12:13 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
One of Samuel's opening comments in his message was that your current proposal puts the onus on group owners to manage membership fees. I think with his proposed solution group owners will spend even more time trying to manage group subscriptions and determine whether members are active or not so they can potentially remove them and free up so called 'free slots' (and there have been recent topics either here or on GMF asking about tools to determine active users - no easy solution exists).
It is unclear from Mark's original announcement (which I will call the "status quo") whether premium groups can set a cap on memberships (so as to prevent moderators from adding 500 new members even though the owner only has enough money to pay for 200 new members when the year-end invoice arrives), though I get the impression that there would be no cap, and group owners would have to actively, and carefully, manage the actual numbers, to protect themselves from unpleasant financial surprises.
With the status quo, there would be a lot of additional administration by group owners anyway. For free basic groups, once the magic number is reached, the owner would have to perform this same task: figure out which members to drop. For premium groups, under the status quo, IF owners are allowed to place a cap on membership numbers, the same thing applies: once the cap is reached, the group owner has to choose between paying extra himself or figuring out which members to remove. Or, if there is no cap, the group owner would still have to do this, but also keep track of how many members there are. (In both cases the owner can also post a request to his list for some members to donate (or, in my suggestion, to become paying members)).