Date   

moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

Mark,
CHANGE: Groups can now have multiple active welcome messages.
And what happens in such a case?
I mean, why have more than one welcome active messages and, in case I have, all welcome messages will be sent at once to every new member?

Cheers,
Marcio AKA Starboy

Sent from a galaxy far, far away.


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 08:58 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
CHANGE: Groups can now have multiple active welcome messages.
Mark,

I tested this and I think it's a great addition. All the active welcome messages are automatically sent to new members, which means you can now send a traditional welcome message (e.g., "welcome to the Shakespeare sonnets group"), along with another separate one containing deeper content (e.g., examples of some sonnets and their analysis), etc. 

Taking advantage, as usual, of the opportunity to ask for more, I am suggesting again that at some point in time, the member notices triggered by actions under moderator control (e.g., message rejection, member removal) can be chosen at the time of the action - instead, as currently, of having to choose, before doing the individual action, which "active" one will go out automatically and then having to go back and reset, etc. (I bring this up because that's what I at first thought this welcome-message change consisted of.)

--
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 Site updates #changelog

 

Changes to the site this week:

  • CHANGE: Previously, members couldn't vote in polls in announcement groups. Now the announcement setting has no effect on whether someone can vote in a poll.
  • CHANGE: Changed wording/color of the button to expand/collapse quoted message parts.
  • CHANGE: Groups can now have multiple active welcome messages.
  • INTERNAL: Added the ability to re-write the From lines of emails from specific domains, as we already do with DMARC, to hopefully fix a delivery issue with samsung.com
  • CHANGE: Added additional text to the Repost Message item in the More menu, describing when you can next repost the message.
  • BUGFIX: When paging through member search results for a query that includes a special character (like @), the query was not properly unescaped.
  • BUGFIX: Changed how we pull messages from the database during a group export to decrease the load on the database as well as increase reliability of the operation.
  • BUGFIX: For groups requiring hashtags, posting on the website didn't display an error when you tried to post without a hashtag.
  • SYSADMIN: Replaced all webserver instances to fix a kernel issue.

Have a good weekend everyone.

Mark


moderated Re: Poll voting behavior change

Leeni
 

Okay thanks for making that change.
The helps a lot. Leeni 
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 5/24/2019 9:46:15 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Poll voting behavior change
 
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:17 PM Leeni <leeniluvsgroups@...> wrote:
Does that also allow someone who is on moderation in a non announcement group to vote in a poll?  
 
No other behavior was changed.... checking the code.... yes, they can still vote in a poll. There is currently no concept of being able to moderate a vote.

Mark 
 


moderated Re: Poll voting behavior change

 

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:17 PM Leeni <leeniluvsgroups@...> wrote:
Does that also allow someone who is on moderation in a non announcement group to vote in a poll?  
 
No other behavior was changed.... checking the code.... yes, they can still vote in a poll. There is currently no concept of being able to moderate a vote.

Mark 


moderated Re: Poll voting behavior change

Leeni
 

Does that also allow someone who is on moderation in a non announcement group to vote in a poll?  
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 05/24/19 19:20:43
Subject: [beta] Poll voting behavior change
 
Hi All,

Previously, in Announcement groups, normal members could not vote in polls. I've changed it so that the Announcement setting no longer affects whether someone has permission to vote in a poll.

Cheers,
Mark
 


moderated "Show quoted text" box is great, now pushing my luck with further suggestion

 

Mark,

I noticed, and really like, the new "Show quoted text" box, which has taken the place of the former ellipses!

I will take advantage of the opportunity to push again for a possible change wherein the member's groups.io auto-sig is not considered part of the quoted text when a message is sent by email. The sigs currently never show up in displayed or emailed messages send by members via email, because they're added at the very bottom and considered part of the quoted text.

I understand that an email auto-sig (as opposed to a groups.io auto-sig) would be difficult or impossible to sort out from quoted text (including prior emails in the thread). But when groups.io adds a sig to the message body, couldn't it be considered/treated as part of the message content when creating the message that's sent out and posted in the archive?

--
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 Poll voting behavior change

 

Hi All,

Previously, in Announcement groups, normal members could not vote in polls. I've changed it so that the Announcement setting no longer affects whether someone has permission to vote in a poll.

Cheers,
Mark


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

Hi All,

Thanks for the respectful discussion. Give me a couple days to figure out what I'm going to do. In the meantime, as promised, here's a picture of Feynman, preventing me from getting any work done.

executivejunior small.jpg
Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

Anybody can object to anything, real world or otherwise. The fact that they object doesn’t make their objections reasonable or based on reality.


On May 23, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io <KWKloeber@...> wrote:

You don’t need to worry about your PTA,
That’s Pollyanna not reality when it comes to any elected board that has to answer to what might turn out to be more than one objector after the objection  is raised and doesn’t quietly go away. They will have their backs against the wall and are not going to stand their ground and fight it, vs just telling Shal to change the forum to Google. No big deal they’ll say.  AND it will highly depend on the leaning of the board members themselves and any personal  relationship with the objectors. Real world. 

--
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
 

You don’t need to worry about your PTA,
That’s Pollyanna not reality when it comes to any elected board that has to answer to what might turn out to be more than one objector after the objection  is raised and doesn’t quietly go away. They will have their backs against the wall and are not going to stand their ground and fight it, vs just telling Shal to change the forum to Google. No big deal they’ll say.  AND it will highly depend on the leaning of the board members themselves and any personal  relationship with the objectors. Real world.


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

KWKloeber
 

Point of information, which I don’t want to stray into a political discussion of any/either direction, but careful with the term “non profit” and implying/inferring too much.

501(c)(4)s are not the Red Cross or Habitat for Humanity. 501(c)(4)s are PACs - Citizens United, Indivisible, a basket full of others. 


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

 

Responding to Maria, Shal, et al re which’s groups are “partisan”: yes, Indivisible is partisan. No, groups.io is not partisan simply because, with all else that it does, and its primary mission, giving a small discount to a partisan group does not make it partisan. You don’t need to worry about your PTA, any more than you’d need to worry about serving Ben and Jerry’s at your PTA picnic. The semantics are being stretched beyond anything reasonable.


On May 23, 2019, at 9:13 AM, HR Tech via Groups.Io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

Thank you for your thoughts Shal,

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:09 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

... have some kind of delusion and distorted perception that revenue
from premium groups is used to “finance the promotion of the left-wing
political view”.
In what way is that even a stretch, much less delusional? Revenue from Premium Groups finances Groups.io, and Groups.io subsidizes the support of at least one partisan organization (Indivisible). That's not too many dots to follow.

The wording used was: to “finance the promotion of the left-wing political view”.

At best it's an exaggeration.

It's a broad statement about the company as a whole financing the "promotion" of the "left wing political view".
I mean, what's a premium group cost? $110 x year. 
Come on.

Look I get it. Indivisible, because of their stated goal to defeat the "Trump Agenda" and promote progressive policies and progressive candidates is partisan. Agreed.

My main concern - which I don't think I've expressed -  is that having the line about the waiver as a headline, could give the false impression that Groups.io is not a welcoming or excellent platform for all kinds of groups ( except those that are clearly outlined as not welcome). I would hate for groups who don't agree with indivisible's specific approach to not feel welcome here - because again - I think their using other platforms that exploit them, doesn't help anyone, and because I know it's the best platform out there. I enjoy diversity and freedom of speech, and well, would never join a club that would have just me as a member - as they say.

My other concern is that there are other good orgs/non-profits who may need help and who may thrive on Groups.io  - and I'd rather see the policy defined so that the umbrella of who gets a free upgrade is not limited to one ( now) non-profit.  But obviously who, what, groups.io wants to support and who they don't - and how much room there is in the budget for waivers is none of my business.


Maria

--
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

Barbara Byers
 

I agree with these ideas.

 


On 2019-05-23 09:08 AM, HR Tech via Groups.Io wrote:

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:08 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:

Can someone, please, enumerate, logically, only those things that Mark can do that meets his two stated desires? 
Yes.

1- Fix the link to Indivisible so that it redirects properly to Indivisible :)
In all of this - no one noticed that actually that link is broken. ( the www. needs to be removed)

2- Move : "Is your group associated with Indivisible? Please contact support, and we will upgrade your group to Premium for free. " to the FAQ section under the "Are There Non-Profit Discounts?". Add a "Are their complimentary upgrades or discounts available for other types of organizations/groups?" - and provide an answer that perhaps could include the above sentence re: indivisible (and others eligible) - or a link to a Groups.io for Good / Groups.io Values page* which lists either specific organizations/NGO's/grassroots advocacy groups - etc - that are eligible to apply for a waiver of the upgrade free - or general criteria.

3 - Add a section in FAQ re: what groups Groups.io does not take on as clients/permit - and a link to community standards.

If a "Values" page is created, use it to express the ways in which Groups.io hopes to make the world a better place. Be it through highlighting examples of public groups (or groups that give permission to be included) that it hosts that are doing good, or causes it supports via free upgrades - or eventually causes it's employees support through employer/ employee matching donations etc.

in similar manner as examples I previously listed.

None of this hides what Groups.io supports - it's just not the headline for the pricing page, which I agree is not the best spot for it.
It allows room for Mark / Groups.io to grow in their efforts to do good
It creates even more transparency
It will also communicate effectively to orgs dedicated to doing good that this is a place that won't exploit their good work by: sucking out data from them, by using their member's data to target ads to them  - and that the business model here is so straight forward, it's the ideal place or home for those trying to do good work.



Maria




moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

Marv Waschke
 

First, Mark can run his business any way he wants to as long as he does not break the law. Groups.io is a business, not a public service or even, as far as I know, a non-profit. As many people have pointed out, taking controversial positions and stating values is no bar to success in business.

Personally, I prefer overt and plainly stated agendas. I would rather Mark state out front what he values than keep his values a secret, make tons of money off groups.io, and then quietly support whatever it is he decides to support.

With that in mind, I like the idea of a "values page" out front and obvious. As a group owner, if I have members who oppose Mark's positions, I would much rather face them openly and directly on the issue. It might decrease the size of a group, but I would rather be open.

Would that decrease groups.io's profitability? I doubt it. The market's a big tent and most folks are quite tolerant of a wide range of stated values.
Best, Marv


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

KWKloeber
 

Thanks Maria for your reasoned elaboration. That’s going along the lines of one way I had suggested.

 Alternately, and again this has NO bearing on that or any other cause,  I wouldn’t expect Mark to in any form or fashion downplay it if he supports any  partisan group very strongly. 
That’s his baby. 
And his business decision as far as any consequences pro or con. 
So, in that scenario I don’t see much issue where it resides/could be plastered all over GIO. 
So long as it’s crystal clear on any page that a potential IO user (especially free) would see beforehand to get the message before signing up for service.  “Informed consent.”
When I said “suckered” I meant a group who signs up, not being told “in their face” about who/what GIO supports. Then afterward has difficulties with their membership. That’s unfair.  If one knows up front, then it’s their problem to make the informed decision. 
However that it washes out for future potential groups who don’t or do care for GIO’s advocacy or don’t give a hoot, or how it affects GIO success, remains Mark’s decision and rightfully no one else’s concern. 

Which “fix” depends on the question I posed, is it just support? (anonymous is also support)  or does he want it to be an in your face statement? 
Either desire, there’s a way to minimize the hardship to a future group owner.  

As as far as current apolitical groups (like PTA), or opposition groups - oh well. Life is what it is and hope no difficulties come of it from their membership.  I kinda doubt that because once such an advocacy issue rises, on ant side, eventually it tends to magically proliferate via the partisans to all corners of the vapor. 

PS, the Indivisible hyperlink (does anyone still use that term?) worked for me 1st time and does now.


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

Maria
 

Thank you for your thoughts Shal,

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:09 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

... have some kind of delusion and distorted perception that revenue
from premium groups is used to “finance the promotion of the left-wing
political view”.
In what way is that even a stretch, much less delusional? Revenue from Premium Groups finances Groups.io, and Groups.io subsidizes the support of at least one partisan organization (Indivisible). That's not too many dots to follow.

The wording used was: to “finance the promotion of the left-wing political view”.

At best it's an exaggeration.

It's a broad statement about the company as a whole financing the "promotion" of the "left wing political view".
I mean, what's a premium group cost? $110 x year. 
Come on.

Look I get it. Indivisible, because of their stated goal to defeat the "Trump Agenda" and promote progressive policies and progressive candidates is partisan. Agreed.

My main concern - which I don't think I've expressed -  is that having the line about the waiver as a headline, could give the false impression that Groups.io is not a welcoming or excellent platform for all kinds of groups ( except those that are clearly outlined as not welcome). I would hate for groups who don't agree with indivisible's specific approach to not feel welcome here - because again - I think their using other platforms that exploit them, doesn't help anyone, and because I know it's the best platform out there. I enjoy diversity and freedom of speech, and well, would never join a club that would have just me as a member - as they say.

My other concern is that there are other good orgs/non-profits who may need help and who may thrive on Groups.io  - and I'd rather see the policy defined so that the umbrella of who gets a free upgrade is not limited to one ( now) non-profit.  But obviously who, what, groups.io wants to support and who they don't - and how much room there is in the budget for waivers is none of my business.


Maria


moderated Re: Paid vs free policy- request

Maria
 

PS: I didn't realize, but Indivisible is now a registered 501(c)(4) ( I don't think it was back in 2017 when it was just a grassroots thing ).
The groups that are associated with it are probably chapters of the home org? non-profits too?
So maybe it all falls under a paragraph re: non-profits in the FAQ and then another for grassroots orgs that meet criteria as defined in a link to a values page. In addition to the clear guidelines re: what kind of groups will not be hosted.



moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

Samuel Murrayy
 

On 2019/05/21 06:51 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Also, suggestions for features to make this more difficult in the future would be appreciated.
How about a living will for groups? I mean, the owner of the group fills in information about who may be considered the owner of the group in case he fails to respond himself. The form can specify how long he must not be responding, and what kinds of rights people can get when that happens, etc. The form can be sent to the owner (and anyone else he nominates to receive it) once a month or once every 3 months, for confirmation.

Samuel


moderated Re: Need help figuring out a policy on this

andy t
 

Hello Victoria, thank you for your comments and I agree with you.

In my case there was absolutely no discussion of what was wrong between me and my co-owner I just found that I could no longer log in to my group and after that I found that I was removed for no reason and I thought I had a true friend and I knew him for 4 years and we talked over everything but I was booted for no apparent reason but I had permission to take over the group and move it from yahoo to groups.io and all went smoothly for over a year and that is why I ask the question of is there a way to protect the founder of a group from being removed for no reason at all.

 

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of Victoria via Groups.Io
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 6:41 AM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Need help figuring out a policy on this

 

As the postings here have shown, it´s not an easy thing…

I have two examples to add to this issue:

  • In a Yahoo group I was a member of, the owner had “disappeared” and was not reachable over years (mail, telephone, etc.). The two existing moderators tried to keep the group running all this time. Very hard job for both, their disparate opinions creating additional conflicts among members. In the end both moderators left the group. One of the two founded a new forum, the other one changed to an already existing yahoo group and was made moderator there. Each person took along her followers. The whole thing cost a lot of nerves since it implicated troublesome procedures for a long time. The acutal problem here was the missing co-owner.
  • In a Yahoo group in which I was a moderator, the founder and owner lost interest in the group after a few years and “disappeared” gradually. For years she could not decide to pass ownership on to someone else. Since I felt very connected to the group, I helped manage it for a couple of years as well as I could. But since I was not able to take owner-related decisions, non-solvable issues arose. At last I could convince the owner to pass ownership on to a moderator of her confidence. This achieved, the new owner died a few years later, but she had learned from experience and was smart enough to make someone co-owner in time. This new co-owner manages the group since then and moved it successfully to I.O. in 2018. It´s a cats health group called “siebenkatzenleben”. I am co-owner there.

In the case of my own yahoo group (cushinghundevital) which I founded in 2006 and which I moved to I.O. in 2018 and learning from all those experience, I made one of my moderators (and good friend) co-owner. The above experience showed me that you never know what can happen to you, no matter how old or healthy you are. I know it´s natural for people to have disagreements or even conflicts, so there is no perfect solution for this issue but trying to stay in touch among moderators and owners. Discussing divergencies any time they occur might help them to stay befriended. That´s my policy anyway.

The idea that a co-owner dismisses the founder, is something hard to imagine, but it seems to happen as your example shows.

I also like the idea of a special status as founder or alternatively the idea that the founder of a group cannot be removed by someone else, but I do not know if this is technically achievable. As to the question if a group founder could be “wrong” - as someone wrote – I do believe that the group of the founder is and stays his or her group, and even if he might be “wrong” from the point of view of a member, moderator or co-owner, then this may be so, but it´s still his or her group. Besides, the dissenting person can always try to address the owner or leave the group if there is no consensus possible. To solve conflicts by throwing each other out of the game is - in my opinion - the worst solution possible, as my two furry family members would state:

 

Peace

Victoria

 

9581 - 9600 of 30647