Date   

moderated Re: Feature Requests

 

However the original post reads Automatic notification to owners and moderators when files, photos are uploaded would be very helpful... which is not the same thing as an optional notification to members when something is uploaded, which currently exists for Files if not Photos.
Exactly. I am not talking about the notification box I can click when I upload a file. I am talking about an additional feature within the moderator and owner notifications such as below:
Notifications
Email when there are messages needing approval.
Email when there are members needing approval.
Email when a member joins/leaves this group.
Email when group storage limits are reached.
Email when someone creates or deletes a subgroup.
Email when someone reports a message.
my suggestion: "Email when someone uploads a file or a photo."
If a moderator or owner does not want to be notified, then there is no need to affirm.

Victoria
 


moderated Re: Feature Requests

 

to miss" smething means thst you once had it or the ability to use it on groups.io.
to the best of my knowledge these did not exist here.
No, they do not. It is a feature yahoo has, and since my group was moved from there, I said I miss it.
Sorry for not understandable abbreviations. I was sure everyone understands s.o. as someone and s.th. as something...

Victoria


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Marv Waschke
 

I suggest that there is nothing that can be done to the platform (groups.io) that will prevent hijacking when trust deteriorates between co-owners. Who is the "true" owner of a group? That is a pact between the owners and the members of the group in which the platform has no voice. The only thing the platform can do is make clear that when disputes between owners arise, ejecting other owners is a race condition. A group owner should be aware that extending ownership to another entity is dangerous and should be done only after proper consideration.

Nevertheless, having more than one owner confers many benefits, but only when the co-owners trust each other.
Best, Marv


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:51 PM dave w <groupsmaster@...> wrote:

We shake our heads and laugh at them (the U.S.), then cry, because of the blatant hypocrisy and lies (calling others 'fake' etc.) and accumulated BS about their greatness. Well guess what, you can bomb, murder and try to bully as many ppl as it takes- you don't get respect for it. All the greed over oil, state control and 'business' just shows how little the US has actually not grown up.

Not appropriate or relevant for this discussion. I'm putting this topic on moderation. Let's keep things focused please.

Mark 


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

dave w
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 08:52 PM, Victoria wrote:

Shal wrote: I think that placing an advertisement for an organization based in topical U.S. partisan politics on an official (and prominent) page of the service is, at best, counterproductive.

Although (as a European) I very much admire the goals and commitment of Indivisible, I agree with Shal.

 Victoria

Well Victoria, I also am not in the US. And I don't agree with him.

We shake our heads and laugh at them (the U.S.), then cry, because of the blatant hypocrisy and lies (calling others 'fake' etc.) and accumulated BS about their greatness. Well guess what, you can bomb, murder and try to bully as many ppl as it takes- you don't get respect for it. All the greed over oil, state control and 'business' just shows how little the US has actually not grown up.

I couldn't give a hoot about Marks politics here. it's not invasive, prominent or even making an appearance- except by one or slightly more biased individuals who want to censor what they don't want. He provides a service that many use and approve of. Free or otherwise. Disagree with that- then depart. Take your hatred and biased opinions elsewhere. None of the nonsensical justifications deserve airing.

With that said, I'm 100% behind Mark. I'd pay for his services if i was able too. With so much directed abuse here I won't be back to read this. Personally, I wouldn't have even approved the posts.
Thanks
davew


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 03:22 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
Any side who's M.O. is to defeat, stop, enjoin the other -- rather than putting the energy toward a common agenda is divisive, simply by its mission
That depends entirely on what they're trying to stop.

Hopefully, Mark can cull out the distinction 
No hope is necessary. He has shown that he can.

--
J

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


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

KWKloeber
 

"... There's NO reason..."


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

KWKloeber
 

Mark,

<What changes would you propose?>>>  You beat me to this as I was composing the below.

Please consider a policy along the lines of "IO supports organizations whose missions are the betterment of..... bla bla bla and contact us if you want us to consider a no-cost upgrade bla bla bla........ "  That is way different than igniting a potential firestorm by advertising support for only ONE agenda.  In that approach, no one knows and likely could care less who or which side you choose to provide freebies (even Labradors over Papillons.)  Doing it that way avoids the inherent problem of causing an issue for (some of) your current and/or potential customers -- Shal's example is right on.  It's the in your face advertising that can cause an issue to groups/among members, etc. Why not do it quietly and support whoever you care to, without "making a statement" as it were.   There's to reason to alienate one group or another from using IO (although indeed, we all agree it is your right.)  I hadn't even thought of the international angle.  Nevertheless, I could personally care less which side you support -- but if you choose no revision -- it's not a reason for me to personally not use IO.

<<<And it's an equivalency that no one is making but you. >>>
J, I don't believe so.  See replies (justifications) implying why the policy as-is is OK, based on "what other companies do" and implying that they (who do not advertising such in their online stores) is justification for IO advertising in favor of one or the other agenda -- which is the root issue that Mark knows has resulted in a real (not a future imagined) hardship to a group.)  My factious example was to spotlight the difference between those two divergent approaches.  
So long as Mark can cull the distinction (hope so) - there's no reason to convince anyone else of the distinction between the Political and the Apolitical.

<<<No, it is not "true." >>>
J, Any side who's M.O. is to defeat, stop, enjoin the other -- rather than putting the energy toward a common agenda is divisive, simply by its mission.  That, again, is A-political, not political -- it holds true of either side, not inherently left or right.  Either side can have a partial agenda that makes sense for (and to) the populous.  There are movements who do that (fight for, ID, and develop common ground) but we're not talking about those in this context (on EITHER leaning.).
Hopefully, Mark can cull out the distinction and the statements that are true (about either side,) and are by definition, Apolitical not Political.  I don't feel a need to further explain the distinction.


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 02:34 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned the list of group subjects I explicitly don't allow (like anti-vaxxers, alt-right, conspiracy theories, etc). I guess I'm not clear how the two wouldn't raise the same concerns.
Mark,

Mention has been made here by at least one person (possibly more) of a "necessity for more free speech rather than less". This seemed to be a not-so-subtle allusion to recently imposed - and entirely appropriate - similar restrictions on spaces like Facebook, etc.. There may not have been an awareness, until your comment here, of the groups.io restrictions, which may explain why they haven't been raised.
 
--
J

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


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

Hi Shal,

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 1:40 AM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

For example, I run groups here related to my high school classmates, and
to my children's PTA unit. The members of those groups undoubtedly hold
a wide mix of political views. If some fraction of my group members feel
uncomfortable using this service for reasons that have nothing to do
with the agenda and content of my group then I have a problem running
that group. In the case of the PTA group it is conceivable that PTA
bylaws could be cited to prohibit me from running the unit's email list
here.


Is the issue more that a group that perhaps not all of your members like is mentioned on the pricing page, or is it that I would support that group at all (myself and Groups.io being basically the same thing)? I certainly don't want to make group owners' lives more difficult. But I also have my beliefs and would like Groups.io to support things I believe are good. What changes would you propose?

Also, I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned the list of group subjects I explicitly don't allow (like anti-vaxxers, alt-right, conspiracy theories, etc). I guess I'm not clear how the two wouldn't raise the same concerns.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:37 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
the paid pundits who are paid by the networks in order  to foster division and raise ratings, instead of doing the harder work to present facts. 
Once again: could you please lay off the politics? It is becoming too hard not to counter these kinds of blatantly political statements. 
 
--
J

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


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:37 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
that characterization of the political group is true
No, it is not "true." It is your opinion. And that's precisely why I did not quote you originally: to avoid this kind of substantive political discussion.
 
--
J

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


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:05 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
Theres a huge difference between a company supporting a cause, and say, Apple or Verizon putting on their store banner “free phone and free service if you are a MAGA (or cross out and insert “x” here) supporter.”  It’s a false equivalency. 
And it's an equivalency that no one is making but you. 
 
--
J

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


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

KWKloeber
 

Ok I get the point.  Don’t pike on meaningless “me too, three” posts if it’s a software feature, but do so if it’s discussing a policy.  Ya. Really?

Yes, that characterization of the political group is true and it holds true no matter the leaning (left right or up or down.) Mark just “happened” to pick that one and that’s the reason I pointed out the fallacy in some of the replies. If the support was for MAGA, the same would hold true.  It’s not a political statement about their goals (end results) and not implied to be (which btw I happen to lean toward — in this recent “climate change” at least.)  Maybe that’s a hint about the request for “neutrality vs an agenda,” (and not a hidden agenda on my part?)

I believe he should rather support Labs (Yellow? Chocolate? Golden? it’s difficult to decide.). But then again as both a feline and Papillon lover moving to Lab support it’s a hard row to hoe. 😎



WHAT DO YOU THINK, ISLA-JEAN?  NATURAL OR PAINT THE  BRICK BRICK  WHITE?










BTW, I do care what your leanings are, and everyone’s as well. It would be much more worthwhile to know those of all Americans and not of the paid pundits who are paid by the networks in order  to foster division and raise ratings, instead of doing the harder work to present facts. 


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

KWKloeber
 

Maria

Caps for emphasis. Three words I believe?  Certainly not intended to be inflammatory, but if taken that way PLEASE (LOL) substitute an underline or bold for caps. 

Theres a huge difference between a company supporting a cause, and say, Apple or Verizon putting on their store banner “free phone and free service if you are a MAGA (or cross out and insert “x” here) supporter.”  It’s a false equivalency. 


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

Maria
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:13 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
And the purpose of discussion here is to improve on it debate the merits (or demerits) of a request. That’s not what the reply was — it was a knee jerk, “I’m just against this.”  Shal’s and others’ recent thoughtful discussions are what is enlightening. The knee jerk popularity poll “me too, three, four, sixteen, I’ve lost count” is what’s detrimental to the process.
Ken,

Agree that discussion here should focus on the merits ( or demerits) of a feature - or policy - and suggestions regarding these.
That said - and I usually try to keep my contributions focused on debating the issues not the individual - if you don't like the knee jerk reactions - please re-read your initial original post.

The tone of it, your choice of words, your CAPS, exclamation points, your bolds, underlining  - it reads remarkably rude and forceful.
Your insinuations of a "hidden political agenda", referring to "conditions" where there are none. Use of the word "suckering" just because Groups.io openly and transparently decided to comp upgrades to one grassroots org back in 2017.

If you want to ignite healthy respectful and thoughtful reflection on policies and not incite knee jerk reactions - you might want to try a different approach when you suggest (or "request" as you wrote) what grassroots orgs, causes etc., a business owner decides to comp on an upgrade.

Also a more accurate subject line would have been: Reviewing Policy Re: Free Upgrades to Premium Service.
Your subject line is inaccurate. Groups.io is free for all. It's up to groups to decide if they need the premium services.

And it's up to Groups.io to decide which organizations - if any - they elect to subsidize.
Just like Apple gives discounts to certain entities and categories of people (students/veterans) and not others.
Just like Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Twitter, Microsoft, Whole Foods and countless others dedicate a whole arm of their business to supporting causes.

If anything good comes of this topic - again, I hope it's that it carves out time for Groups.io to broaden the reach of how they want to help NGO's, charities, and causes.
This is a MUCH ( sorry caps) better platform for any organization trying to do good than facebook will ever be.

Maria


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

Michael Pavan
 

Many people support causes they believe in, and many company owners do so through their company. In Mark's case the easiest and probably most effective way for him to do that is by offering a Groups.io discount in a clearly defined way. I see it as no different than anybody else making a monetary donation in an open, non-secret manner.

The complaint seems to be that the way Mark is doing so is not PC. Since such support is not inappropriate, the suggestion is essentially that the wording should be:
"Apply for a discount if you believe your cause is worthy"
This not only makes what causes are supported a secret, but would also create a lot of extra work to have to field and reject/ignore many inquiries.

Besides the 'cat already being out of the bag', I see no good reason to cloak political support with secrecy - there is too much of that already. Not to mention it would make it harder for anyone know who wants to not use Groups.io good service.




-- .--- .--.


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Ken Schweizer
 

Hi Mark,

 

There really is no way to prevent this as long as there are multiple owners of a group. One possible deterrent would be to not allow an owner to be deleted by a single owner, i.e. two unique owners, with x months of ownership, are required to delete another owner. This wouldn't prevent a hijacking as an owner can set up a fantom owner to validate the deletion.

 

The only way to prevent this is for the group's owner to "know" anyone they promote to a co-owner.

 

Just my thoughts,

Ken

 

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." God

 

From: main@beta.groups.io [mailto:main@beta.groups.io] On Behalf Of Mark Fletcher
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 11:52 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Need help figuring out a policy on this

 

Hi All,

 

4+ years in, and I've avoided anything like this so far, but I need help crafting a policy for the following scenario. It involves a Yahoo Group that was transferred. The Y!Group has been deleted, and I don't have the original transfer records anymore. This anonymized email lays things out:

 

I'm writing to inform you that I understand that Mr X was removed as list moderator by Mr Y.
Mr X was the original owner of the list, and now Mr Y has removed Mr X as a list member.
I was removed some months back for [REDACTED and not important]. I don't fully understand how Mr Y stole the list from Mr X, probably because Mr Y was assisting with moderating. I have known Mr X for nearly twenty years and I know him to be a fair and honest person.

 

I need a policy for how to handle a supposed group hijacking. Also, suggestions for features to make this more difficult in the future would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Queued emails prematurely deleted

Ken Schweizer
 

Hi Mark,

 

Just proves you're human!!

 

Ken

 

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." God

 

From: main@beta.groups.io [mailto:main@beta.groups.io] On Behalf Of Mark Fletcher
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 6:42 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Queued emails prematurely deleted

 

Hi All,

 

When we send an email, if we're unable to send it at the moment we get it, we put it in a queue and periodically retry sending it for 7 days, using an exponential backoff algorithm. Unfortunately, due to a programming error on my part, I accidentally deleted many of these queued messages this afternoon before their 7 days were up. Many of these messages would never have been delivered, due to receiving machine issues, but some would have (I don't have exact numbers available). I have fixed the bug and added additional checks to make sure this won't happen again. I sincerely apologize for the screwup.

 

Mark


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:13 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
<<<You were not suggesting a feature.>>>
 
Again, I already said I didn’t know where to raise this.   Whether it’s a feature of io might be an honest debate.  Or one of those distinctions w/o a difference?  Policies are sometimes also discussed herein (ahem, Mark’s last topic, for instance?)
Nobody said it was wrong to raise this issue here. I and a couple of others were pointing out that Mark's asking not to debate the value of features applies to features. He did not say not to debate groups.io philosophical issues, or "policies." Yet you tried to cite that limitation to preclude debate about your issue. I don't think this is a distinction without a difference. A feature is part of a piece of software that users can use. This is not that. Perhaps Mark meant the limitation to include debates about broader issues and not just features. But that was not how he phrased it, and that was not how it's been taken here, and that's why your citing of it to preclude discussion of your issue did not seem appropriate .

<<<not leaning one way or the other" about Indivisible, you expressed your negative opinion of it.>>>
I’m not positive of which statement(s), just to avoid the obvious, please quote so I can be precise in my reply?
Right here: "Indivisible does not promote unity, it promotes defeat by garnering greater numbers, which leads to more division and gridlock" 
--
J

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