Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 09:25 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I'd like to have a different word than "paid" for these subscriptions, to avoid confusion with subscription slots purchased by the groupPerhaps mirror the same terms as the proposed group tiers. A Basic Member and a Premium Member.
On another note, I think many are making this overly complicated. Right now if a new group owner were to create a basic group after Jan 18 and the 101st member applied to join a Basic group they can't join. Period.
The same questions apply. Will they go on a waiting list for a vacancy? Will a non participating member be removed so the new one can join? Will the group owner elect to upgrade to Premium? If so, will all members now be forced to contribute to that cost? Who pays the $0.55 per member cost that is being proposed over the Premium capped member limit.
Under the proposed plan of GIO paid account holders the GIO account holder would have the option to apply and be approved to join a Basic group as member 101. Nothing would change for any of the other existing group members nor for the owner of that Basic group if the group accepted their 101st member in this way.
Ditto for Premium groups for potential member 401.
What this proposal does is to allow GIO account holders to join newly created groups that they otherwise could not join due to member caps.
If right now, today, Mark had grandfathered legacy group owners in and said the legacy group could not increase membership, would you see things differently?
Please try to put yourself in the proposed new group owner's shoes. They want member 101 or member 401. Member 101 and Member 401 want to join. Members 101, 401 and upwards are willing to pay $3, $5, $10, etc a year to be able to join the myriad of GIO groups that will be created with membership caps after Jan 18th.
After Jan 18, new group owners have tough choices. Who gets removed so as not to exceed 100 or 400? Who gets admitted if more than one person applies for their remaining slot?
After Jan 18 GIO account holders have a rough time of it. Applying for groups and being denied because it would send the group over their member limit. Keep searching in the hopes that a group under their member limits will be found. Or deciding to not use and not to recommend GIO because the groups they found and want to join are capped.
I don't recall any other group/forum service that allowed individuals to create a personal account and then allows them to search for groups they are interested in and then, after applying, are told, "Sorry our group is full, you can't join until we have a vacant slot".
I think some group owners may not realize that people come to GIO, create their account and then search for groups to join. I did that. I searched, found and join existing groups long before I ever created a group.
I have read many a discussion from group owners about the GIO search process and how they aren't found as easily as they used to be. It's people with individual accounts that are joining groups. GIO needs individual account holders to remain viable under "a search to join group model. It seems to me that a good number of group owners opposing Samuels proposal envision GIO soley as a Hosting Platform for group owners.
Discussing Samuels proposal is about finding a way that would allow GIO account holders the opportunity to join capped membership groups. It's about offering ways for capped membership groups to grow in membership without forcing either the owner(s) to pay or forcing the owner(s) to collect money from their existing members so they can upgrade and accept member 101 or cover the per member expenses beyond member 400.