toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Shal is diametrically opposed to Mark’s original idea, in which only owners pay, in that case.
Also please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said things “must” be one way or the other. My feeling is that that would be the best and the simplest. I said that I would not be opposed to a hybrid. What I am strongly opposed to is member payment being tied to a specific group or groups.
On Jan 12, 2021, at 9:34 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
The difference being that under Drew's proposals, ALL members would be required to take a paid subscription, to be able to join groups (beyond perhaps a few) whichever groups they are. As such it is the opposite of Mark's proposal - it charges members, instead of group owners.
Ah. I missed the implication that the ability of a group to pay for additional free slots, and even the base-level free slots, would be taken away under Drew's proposal.
And as such it has the same inferiority to Samuel's, which provides for a choice: either the group owner or the member can pay - if neither, then no membership of that group for that member.
I'm diametrically opposed to J's opinion that it must be 100% one or the other - groups are too varied in their purposes and needs for a one-size-fits-all solution to work.
Some group owners would be happy to sponsor (pay for) their entire membership (with or without donations from some members); but would anticipate near zero membership if the members were required to pay Groups.io directly (Drew's plan).
Other group owners cannot manage this and would ask their members to pay Groups.io for an account; but would be limited to their plan's base amount (100, 400, 1000) if there were no paid accounts (Mark's original Pricing Changes).
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