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

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Ronaldo, et al... 

There have been numerous opinions contributes here under the above subject, under [beta] "Protecting the original Owner from rogue co-Owners #suggestion, and under [GMF] "Absentee Owner Succession feature and [GMF] "What if Owner dies?, each addressing (at least in part) the common concern of succession of a single owner in case of unexpected demise, departure or extended disability (and what then to do).

There is no simple place to go or straightforward procedure specifically addressing the subject of moderators.  Instead, we have to select a member by name, then click on “Role” after which the choices are “ owner  Moderator” or “Member”.  After choosing “ moderator”, there are no less than FIFTEEN optional “Permissions”, at least one of which permits a moderator to demote an existing owner.  

FIVE of these have in parenthesis further information, i.e. “(also allows…).  None of them mention (“also can demote existing owner”).  

I cannot conceive WHY this time bomb, which now is common knowledge and undisputed. has not been defused.  Either THAT option should be deleted or the power for a moderator to demote an existing owner should be removed such that this land mine in new group choices is defused.  Either is effective, so whichever is easiest should be done.  

Once this is done, it is not necessary to appoint co-owners who would then have the immediate power to demote or remove the existing acting administrative owner.  A moderator will all other owner powers can keep a group functional indefinitely.

An so to the question of group leadership in case the Owner function is unexpectedly vacant, whether from unexpected personal emergency such as death or disability, or abandonment.  In this regard, I think Groups.io needs to have a policy of requiring each group to have or select a single person as their contact for all official business.  

This is a matter for Groups.io legal staff to contemplate.  If it were made part of revised “Terms of Service”, all related uncertainty is eliminated.  Banks, telephone companies, etc. do this annually and even more often.  Not something we clients of Groups.io need concern ourselves with.

When this is done, concurrently Groups.io should go back to the place discussed in the second paragraph above.  Following the “Role” of “owner  (and before “Notifications”) there should be a place requiring an entry for an Owner/representative successor designation.  This would be a blank where each group would be required to enter the name of a “contact” authorized to speak for the group in case of unexpected demise, departure or extended disability of a serving Owner.  

That person would have NO power whatsoever pending actual  demise, departure or extended disability of a serving Owner.  Problems solved!  NO “cans of worms!

WRB

— 

On Feb 15, 2020, at 4:10 PM, Jeremy H via Groups.Io <jeremygharrison@...> wrote:

My thought (as expressed on GMF) is that there should be certain 'Owner only' privileges: I would suggest they are (1) the ability to make/unmake owners; (2) the ability to delete or rename their group; and (maybe) (3) the ability to set up a 'will file', as to what should happen if they go missing.

Everything else can/may be granted to moderators, including the ability to make others moderator: one possible extension to moderator privileges is one to 'Set (for others) only moderator privileges that they have' (but not those they don't).

The issue of what to do when the only owner of group goes missing is a another can of worms: as I see it, this is a situation that can only be fixed by Mark/Groups.io support intervention, for which they should have a published policy (which might be to do nothing).

Jeremy
_._,_._,_

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

Charles Roberts
 

What he said!

Chuck

On Feb 15, 2020 5:10 PM, "Jeremy H via Groups.Io" <jeremygharrison@...> wrote:
My thought (as expressed on GMF) is that there should be certain 'Owner only' privileges: I would suggest they are (1) the ability to make/unmake owners; (2) the ability to delete or rename their group; and (maybe) (3) the ability to set up a 'will file', as to what should happen if they go missing.

Everything else can/may be granted to moderators, including the ability to make others moderator: one possible extension to moderator privileges is one to 'Set (for others) only moderator privileges that they have' (but not those they don't).

The issue of what to do when the only owner of group goes missing is a another can of worms: as I see it, this is a situation that can only be fixed by Mark/Groups.io support intervention, for which they should have a published policy (which might be to do nothing).

Jeremy

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

Jeremy H
 

My thought (as expressed on GMF) is that there should be certain 'Owner only' privileges: I would suggest they are (1) the ability to make/unmake owners; (2) the ability to delete or rename their group; and (maybe) (3) the ability to set up a 'will file', as to what should happen if they go missing.

Everything else can/may be granted to moderators, including the ability to make others moderator: one possible extension to moderator privileges is one to 'Set (for others) only moderator privileges that they have' (but not those they don't).

The issue of what to do when the only owner of group goes missing is a another can of worms: as I see it, this is a situation that can only be fixed by Mark/Groups.io support intervention, for which they should have a published policy (which might be to do nothing).

Jeremy

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

 

Oh, I think you mean you can edit the poll after people have already voted to show who voted for what. That's pretty bad. 
--
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: log activity when someone responds to a poll #suggestion

Duane
 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:05 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Ok. That’s very good to know. I’ve been wanting to do an anonymous poll in my group but always thought it was not possible.
There's a very LARGE caveat.  The poll can be edited so that the information is revealed!  That might be considered a bug, or at least an undesired option.  Once the "Do not show who responded to the poll" option is chosen, it shouldn't be changeable.

Duane

moderated Re: Default database view #done #suggestion

Chris Smith
 

Perhaps, as someone else suggested, truncating HTML columns at a certain height might help.

However, in our particular use case we would like to hide other columns too. We just need to be able to display a few columns, then when the user clicks on a row they can view the entire record.

Thanks,
Chris

moderated Site updates #changelog

 

Changes to the site this week:

  • INTERNAL: Added additional monitoring of the search cluster.
  • INTERNAL: Switched over to a new Elasticsearch 7 search cluster. All of this work around search has multiple goals:
    • The old search cluster was under-powered and running on older software, and nodes were prone to freeze up.
    • Defining a new member index for a new member directory search.
    • Switching the existing member list search to use the search cluster with the goal of allowing groups to add additional custom fields for members, which could be searched upon.
  • INTERNAL: Re-indexed all of our data in a new search cluster.
  • BUGFIX: Found a file descriptor leak in some networking code.
  • INTERNAL: Began deleting attachments in groups that are over their storage allotment.
  • CHANGE: Changed more instances of subscriber to member on the website.

Have a good weekend everyone.

Mark

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

 

Ok. That’s very good to know. I’ve been wanting to do an anonymous poll in my group but always thought it was not possible.


On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:10 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 07:29 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
That depends on the answer to "Do not show WHO who responded to the poll"? Does it mean, don't even show the mods? I was under the impression it just meant "don't show the group."
On the two I looked at, not even an owner or poll creator can see who responded, being truly anonymous (except for the hidden record that keeps track of each persons response in case they want to change it.)  Keeping it from most members is covered by the "Only moderators and poll creators can view results and responders, regardless of whether the poll is open or closed." option.

Duane

--
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: log activity when someone responds to a poll #suggestion

Duane
 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 07:29 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
That depends on the answer to "Do not show WHO who responded to the poll"? Does it mean, don't even show the mods? I was under the impression it just meant "don't show the group."
On the two I looked at, not even an owner or poll creator can see who responded, being truly anonymous (except for the hidden record that keeps track of each persons response in case they want to change it.)  Keeping it from most members is covered by the "Only moderators and poll creators can view results and responders, regardless of whether the poll is open or closed." option.

Duane

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

 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 04:46 PM, Duane wrote:
I realized that if implemented, there should be no logging if the poll is set up for "Do not show who responded to the poll" is chosen.
That depends on the answer to "Do not show WHO who responded to the poll"? Does it mean, don't even show the mods? I was under the impression it just meant "don't show the group."
 
--
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: log activity when someone responds to a poll #suggestion

Duane
 

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 07:34 PM, Bill Hazel wrote:
Could "responded to poll" be added as an activity in the logs (group's member activity log, and individual member activity log)?
While researching something else, I realized that if implemented, there should be no logging if the poll is set up for "Do not show who responded to the poll" is chosen.

Duane

moderated Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta

Duane
 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:43 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I agree also. But it's already in the Guidelines page.
Oops, I hadn't seen it there.  Maybe have the Guidelines sent on join (and every month?), with a "lock immediately" hashtag.  Or make a locked post with only the charter and sticky it since the 'help' info is a sticky wiki.  Really anything that is more obvious.  (Time for a RED subject line? ;>)

Duane

moderated Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta

 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 03:39 PM, Duane wrote:
#fixed and #done are moderator hashtags, not for users.  They would be added if/when that state is reached.
That brings up the issue, which occurred to me last night, of what happens when a bug is tagged #fixed by Mark and it turns out not to really be fixed. Does Mark remove the tag? In the cases I've noticed so far, they've retained the tag. But that's probably an issue for another thread.

I do agree that there should be an easy place for others, especially newcomers, to find the mandate(s) for the group.  A sticky, either post or wiki page, would seem to be the most noticeable.
I agree also. But it's already in the Guidelines page.
 
--
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: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta

Duane
 

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:52 PM, JediPirx wrote:
These are the currently available category hashtags for users :

#bug
#fixed

#suggestion
#done

#meta

#misc
#fixed and #done are moderator hashtags, not for users.  They would be added if/when that state is reached.  I do agree that there should be an easy place for others, especially newcomers, to find the mandate(s) for the group.  A sticky, either post or wiki page, would seem to be the most noticeable.

Duane

moderated Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta

 

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 02:39 PM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
I don’t agree with everything J says
What???  You don't? Tsk, tsk! :-)
 
--
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: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta

txercoupemuseum.org
 

Hear, Hear.

I don’t agree with everything J says, but she obviously thinks before posting and her opinions often worthy of consideration.

WRB

— 

On Feb 14, 2020, at 3:47 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Unfortunately I have to say "I disagree" with the vast majority (or at least a whole lot) of this. I don't know where it's coming from. It does not seem to be coming from the original "charter" that Mark posted, but seems to stem from a subsequent suggestion by someone else. Just for example, this

Avoid using "I agree", "me too", "No one will use that", "That would
cause a mess", and so on

strikes me as much too broad and restrictive. It lumps in unhelpful comments like "no one would use that" with possibly helpful, constructive ones. There is such a thing as legitimate agreement or disagreement based on facts.

I also disagree with the section about "proposals" becoming "suggestions." I would not participate here if every suggestion I think of making has to go through a "proposal" process to be vetted by other group members. I realize that's the way things are done in GMF and that's fine (I don't belong to that group anyway). 

We don't "all have to focus on getting stuff implemented." We are not the company. We're just a bunch of users, all of whom have our own opinions on things.
--
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 App is starting to become accessible #misc

 

Hi All,

A lot of work on accessibility was just merged into the app. It's not complete (like the app itself), but many of the screens and menus should be accessible now. If you use a screen reader on iOS and are interested in giving feedback, please join the app subgroup and install the app, following the instructions here: https://beta.groups.io/g/app/message/2

All app feedback should be sent to the app subgroup.

Thanks, Mark

moderated Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki #meta

 

Unfortunately I have to say "I disagree" with the vast majority (or at least a whole lot) of this. I don't know where it's coming from. It does not seem to be coming from the original "charter" that Mark posted, but seems to stem from a subsequent suggestion by someone else. Just for example, this

Avoid using "I agree", "me too", "No one will use that", "That would
cause a mess", and so on

strikes me as much too broad and restrictive. It lumps in unhelpful comments like "no one would use that" with possibly helpful, constructive ones. There is such a thing as legitimate agreement or disagreement based on facts.

I also disagree with the section about "proposals" becoming "suggestions." I would not participate here if every suggestion I think of making has to go through a "proposal" process to be vetted by other group members. I realize that's the way things are done in GMF and that's fine (I don't belong to that group anyway). 

We don't "all have to focus on getting stuff implemented." We are not the company. We're just a bunch of users, all of whom have our own opinions on things.
--
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 Add log entry for pending subscription timing out #suggestion

 

The suggestion is to include a group activity log entry for when a pending subscription times out and is deleted after 14 days.
--
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

West Coast Compañeros Staff
 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:27 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
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.
 
Shal,

My intention in proposing a Primary Owner (Powner?) was really to bring Mark's attention to the large volume of discussion that has been taking pace on GMF, on the related issues of 1) protecting original owners from being demoted or removed (potentially leading to groups being hijacked or deleted), and 2) avoiding the orphaning of groups.

In my own case, I would never establish moderators or co-owners whom I didn't trust implicitly, but the extensive discussion about rogue owners on GMF deserves some attention here in beta. Bruce's excellent suggestion about refining moderators' permissions is one piece of the puzzle, but I thought it would be helpful to throw some of the other puzzle pieces onto the table in hopes of forming a coherent set of solutions.

I got carried away and tried to propose a complicated solution instead of just launching a couple of new topics to consider the main interrelated issues. To simplify: a sole owner would automatically be identified as the primary owner. In groups with multiple owners, the other owners can, if they wish, "promote" someone to primary owner by voluntarily demoting themselves (temporarily). The sole remaining owner then automatically becomes the primary owner and reinstates the co-owners. The primary owner would be immune from demotion or removal by other owners, and would be the only one empowered to delete a group.

Robert R.