Date   

moderated Re: log activity when someone responds to a poll #suggestion

Bill Hazel
 

I found this thread in a message search to see if it had been covered before.
Could "responded to poll" be added as an activity in the logs (group's member activity log, and individual member activity log)?


moderated Database triggers or alerts? #suggestion

Chris Smith
 

Any plans to add triggers to the database functionality?

Even something simple like being able to send an email when a new row is added?

Chris


moderated Auto-trim [External] to keep threads together? #suggestion

Mark Berry
 

As noted in this thread, some email clients or services prepend "[External]" to the subject when a message arrives from outside the organization. This helps recipients avoid being tricked. (E.g the "accounting" department sends an urgent request to an executive asking for a wire transfer to xyz.) Good idea.

The modified subject is of course retained when the recipient replies. Unfortunately, this splits the thread in groups.io. And while it may be possible to manually merge threads, it will be a never-ending process.

Is it possible to strip the "[External]" tag before accepting the message into the group? Or better, is there a way to edit the list of tags that get stripped? I'm assuming it is already stripping "RE:", "FW:", and maybe some other translations. I wouldn't be surprised if the "[External]" tag might also get modified in some systems to read "[Ext]" or "[Ausserhalb]" or whatever, so it would be best if we could create/edit our own list of strings to strip from the subject.

Thanks,

Mark Berry


moderated Your chat will be created when it's approved by the moderators. #bug

Samuel Murrayy
 

Hello

From limited testing, it would appear that the message "Your chat will be created when it's approved by the moderators." pops up after creating a chat, only if the user chose to notify the group about the chat.

Also, moderators do not seem to have any option to approve or deny a chat.  What moderators can do, is to approve or deny the *notification* that is sent to the group.  Rejecting or deleting the pending notification message does not affect the chat.  A chat always exists as soon as the user tries to create it (right?).

So, it would seem that the message "Your chat will be created when it's approved by the moderators." should be changed to "The group will be notified of your chat when the moderators approve the notification."

Samuel


moderated Re: Default database view #done #suggestion

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 09:02 PM, Chris Smith wrote:
It would be really useful to be able to set a default visibility on database columns.
I agree, it's not always necessary to see all columns at the start.  One may wish to include certain information in the database for the sake of completeness even though that data is not the main function of the database.  It would be good if the table owner can specify which columns should be considered the "default visible" columns (and perhaps have a button "reset table to default view" so that people who showed or hid certain columns can easily revert to the table owner's preferred view), and if the system could remember an individual member's previously viewed set of columns.

The fact that the viewed columns is not remembered affected the way I designed some of my tables.  For example, I added old mails to the database, and had a separate column for sender, receiver and date, but I really wanted the body of the mail to be most visible (and the other columns only there for when the database feature starts supporting search within specific columns), but since those columns get re-visible each time the user visits the table, I have opted to simply NOT have separate columns for sender, receiver, etc.

We have a use case where we want to store a HTML page, but when you view the rows it looks a mess, as the entire HTML page is being displayed.
Hiding that column by default would be useful, but another useful feature would be to specify a default maximum height of a row (so that the cell appears truncated until the user does something, e.g. click inside the cell or select the row and select the option to view the row individually).

Samuel


moderated Re: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:10 PM, ro-esp wrote:
(crazy stuff I haven found the word for excluded)
Oh, right! Haha.
 
--
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: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

ro-esp
 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:50 PM, J_Catlady wrote:


On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:25 PM, ro-esp wrote:

IMHO a moderator should have the power to appoint a successor.
Well yes, and, er, no. If it is necessary to appoint a successor then that
ought really to be a collaborative decision taken by all the managers of a
group, not just the person who is standing down.
If you substitute the word "owner" in the ro-esp message, which is what I
think(?) was meant there
No, that's not what I meant. If someone with the title of moderator is doing all the work, but has to go away for a while, (s)he needs to be able to promote someone to *moderator*. If the *owner* is missing, appointing a new one requires intervention by support@groups.io , and I don't want any time-pressure on that.

As to "collaborative decision taken by all the managers"... no, I don't necessarily agree with that. I think the GROUP can have a vote on it if it disagrees with a decision of a moderator/owner.

An owner *should* have the power to uniquely appoint a successor.
Yes, of course an owner should be able to bestow the title of (co- / vice-) owner upon somebody. Most of the discussion is about who has the right to TAKE IT AWAY.

Maybe nobody except the owner him/herself should have the right to demote an owner (crazy stuff I haven found the word for excluded)


groetjes/ĝis, Ronaldo


moderated Re: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

 

Ronaldo,

My only concern is with this:

Even a co-owner/vice-owner should not be able to singlehandedly demote an owner.

I'm not yet convinced that there's a benefit to having separate classes of owner (original/founder versus other) that outweighs the complexity/confusion that it may cause.

I would say that if an owner doesn't trust someone well enough to make them a co-equal owner then they should make that person a fully-permissioned moderator instead. That of course presumes that the primary change of this topic has been made to prevent such a moderator from making any changes to any owners' role or subscription.

IMHO a moderator should have the power to appoint a successor.

I believe that the ability of a moderator to appoint a successor moderator should be controlled by the permission to Set Moderator Privileges. That would allow the moderator to change a member's role to moderator and set that new moderator's permissions.

Shal


moderated Re: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

Dave Sergeant
 

When I set up one of my groups I deliberately made both moderators
owners. This has now come in useful as the original owner is now in a
care home, quite unwell and unable to moderate. I also ensure that all
moderators have priveleges to upgrade members to moderators (something
that nearly stopped me sorting out a Yahoogroups transfer a few years
ago).

Dave

On 12 Feb 2020 at 8:54, J_Catlady wrote:

Of course, I am talking about if chosen before the owner gets hit by a
bus. If the owner is gone and a successor must be chosen, then all bets
are off.

http://davesergeant.com


moderated Re: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:57 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
If it meant owner rather than moderator then I think I agree with you. :)
I think there might be a lot of conflation of terms in this thread. Not sure. But I can say that it's confusing enough even without that happening. ;)
 
--
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: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:50 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
If you substitute the word "owner" in the ro-esp message, which is what I think(?) was meant there,
My comments were based on what was written, not what might have been meant. If it meant owner rather than moderator then I think I agree with you. :)

Chris


moderated Re: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:50 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
An owner *should* have the power to uniquely appoint a successor.
Of course, I am talking about if chosen before the owner gets hit by a bus. If the owner is gone and a successor must be chosen, then all bets are off.
 
--
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: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:43 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:25 PM, ro-esp wrote:
IMHO a moderator should have the power to appoint a successor.
Well yes, and, er, no. If it is necessary to appoint a successor then that ought really to be a collaborative decision taken by all the managers of a group, not just the person who is standing down.

If you substitute the word "owner" in the ro-esp message, which is what I think(?) was meant there, then I agree with that. An owner *should* have the power to uniquely appoint a successor. This is *not* and should never be a "collaborative decision." And even if the original post meant "moderator," I also think it's not a collaborative decision; it is, again, and I think should be, the unique decision of the owner. 
--
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: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:25 PM, ro-esp wrote:
IMHO a moderator should have the power to appoint a successor.
Well yes, and, er, no. If it is necessary to appoint a successor then that ought really to be a collaborative decision taken by all the managers of a group, not just the person who is standing down. After all a successor is a replacement, not simply an additional moderator.

However I can envisage circumstances where an additional moderator might be required to cover a sudden gap in moderation coverage, and in that case it might well be acceptable for a single moderator to appoint someone to the role, possibly (probably?) with limited permissions.; even then a concensus decision would be preferable.

I struggle to think of any way in which Mark could provide a software solution to cater for both sets of circumstances.

In many ways the best solution is the application of good manners, good practice, and good faith, but sadly the implication underlying the current "Requirement" is that all three are, in some groups, lacking. :(

Chris


moderated Re: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

ro-esp
 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:27 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

I'll amend my prior message to add concurrence with what I believe is
Michael's point: a moderator should not be able to remove an owner
regardless of the moderator's permissions or the number of owners.
I think there's a lot of consensus here, but not quite the right wording yet. Let me give it a shot: someone with the title of *moderator* should not be able to demote or remove someone with the title of *owner*. Even a co-owner/vice-owner should not be able to singlehandedly demote an owner. Someone with the title "moderator" should not be able to singlehandedly promote someone else to owner. IMHO a moderator should have the power to appoint a successor.

I'm not going into any unpleasantness that could arise due to people changing group settings here for now.

groetjes, Ronaldo


moderated Re: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

 

Michael wrote:

If there is more than one Owner, a Moderator can remove other
Owner(s). Some Owners may wish to have more than one Owner...
I'll amend my prior message to add concurrence with what I believe is Michael's point: a moderator should not be able to remove an owner regardless of the moderator's permissions or the number of owners.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/24151

Otherwise the risk is that a moderator might effectively decapitate a group by removing all the active owners, leaving only an inactive or incapacitated one.

Shal


moderated Re: banned members show display names below messages, inconsistent with no display name shown for past members #bug

 

In case that was unclear: When xyz member leaves or is removed from a group, all their messages in that group lose their display name as being by xyz, and instead show three dots where the display name used to be. But if xyz is then banned, their display name comes back below all their messages.

It does not make sense for banned members' messages to show display names when left/removed members' messages do not.

And if, in fact, a group moderator wanted to exploit that loophole, they could simply ban any past member to make the display names beneath their messages come back. (I would certainly never do that. Not moi! :)
--
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 Ensuring Group Ownership/Management Continuity #suggestion

txercoupemuseum.org
 

This issue has been discussed to some length under the topic of "Absentee Owner Succession feature.  It is of substantial and ongoing concern to more than a few owners.  

I suggest several designee options for current founders/owners in case of death or functional disability or absence of significant duration.  

One would be an option checkbox to designate a specific group person to exercise any and all powers of ownership necessary to initiate and oversee the timely and equitable transfer of ownership to another (unspecified) member of a group (other than themselves) as they see fit.  

The other would be an option checkbox to specifically designate a successor “owner”.  

As previously stated under the suggestion " Protecting the original Owner from rogue co-Owners”, the following considerations have been submitted for adoption and should be considered as applicable to the preceding:

1.  Where there exist multiple owners, that person having made application for transfer of of said group(s) to Groups.io or founding said group on Groups.io  automatically have PRIMARY “ownership”.  

2.  A Founder may and often does step back at some point in time and allow “new management” to prove themselves.  A group "owner” appointed for such purpose would serve at the pleasure of the Founder.  

At such time as the Founder desires to no longer be involved, a PRIMARY Owner should be designated, whether such be by appointment or via other group procedure independent of Groups.io.

3.  A notice to all groups of these changes should be sent announcing a reasonable period for consideration/reconsideration of special circumstances [30 days?] after which agreement would be presumed.  Since these are all options originated here by Groups.ioGroups.io should and would have final say.

Thank you for your consideration.

William R. Bayne, Owner
Ercoupe Tech, Ercoupe Flyin


moderated banned members show display names below messages, inconsistent with no display name shown for past members #bug

 

This is strongly related to the other issue(s) regarding banning and display names, but I think merits its own bug report:

Past members, whether having left or been removed, no longer have their display names shown beneath their messages in the archive. The display name is replaced with three dots. However, if you ban a member who has already been removed, their display name COMES BACK TO HAUNT their messages in the form of their default (system-wide) display name.

Whichever way you call it, this is inconsistent. Either past members' display names should show up below their messages or they not (I personally think not). If not, they should not show up for banned members, either, since they are also gone. If yes, then they should be displayed for past members as well.
--
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 Event: Unplanned downtime #outage - Tuesday, 11 February 2020 #outage #cal-invite

main@beta.groups.io Calendar <main@...>
 

Unplanned downtime #outage

When:
Tuesday, 11 February 2020
8:17pm to 8:23pm
(UTC-08:00) America/Los Angeles

Description:

An upgrade to one of the database tables unexpectedly ended up locking the database, requiring shutting the site down and rebooting the database.