moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

I respectfully but emphatically disagree.  Incessant criticism without suggestion(s) for improvement is a waste of everyone’s time.  

I happen to believe this DISCUSSION, ongoing though it may be, is of considerable value to Mark.  It certainly makes him aware of infinitely more considerations than he would likely consider on his own.  Isn’t that good?

And I think we presume too much to expect a “perfect” solution to suddenly spring forth self-evident, clean, clear, and acceptable to all parties.  The parable is that the process necessary to produce both consensus and sausages is intrinsically messy and those participating need to accept that.  

When “the wine” is complete for putting into barrels, it will still be Mark, the vintner, who decides the “character” he wants in the finished product and when it has aged to the point he is willing to put his name and reputation on the final product.  Some things take time.  Nine women cannot have a baby in one month.
I think Mark’e original good intentions had a dark side in that with time and growth they are unsustainable in present form for the long term.  I further think we are extremely lucky that he has asked group owners to contribute their opinions for his consideration in resolving this problem.  

Ultimately, it will be Mark who adopts a course of action that will transition into a sustainable organization capable of providing him with an acceptable long term income for his efforts.  I suggest that, in terms of input, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.




On Jan 9, 2021, at 9:35 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 07:12 PM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:
or prunes membership, which itself can result in unintended removals making (other) members "payforit" indirectly.
That's right. It affects everybody, the whole works.

Samuel's idea piggybacks on (1) and adds an extra payment feature ,,, users can now themselves purchase an optional sitewide account
Exactly. A big mess. Whereas simply changing the fee structure for owners is invisible to other users. It doesn't have to be Mark's original plan. Maybe that's too expensive, maybe the membership limits need adjusting, maybe not, whatever. But it doesn't turn everything upside down, it's invisible to users, and it's cleaner (no worrying about refunds after a member is kicked out, no worrying about the sequence and flow of confirmation/payment/group acceptance, and probably a dozen other complications).

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

Join to automatically receive all group messages.