Date   

moderated Re: Calendar Add/Edit Reminder issues #suggestion #bug

 

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 5:56 PM Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> wrote:

This is a combination of two separate but related issues in the Reminders section of the Event Add/Edit screen.

Please refer to this topic: https://groups.io/g/Group_Help/topic/events_calendar_reminders/79560226

The bug part; the "minutes before" duration textbox and/or underlying code allows the user to add/edit and save a Reminder with zero or negative values as the "minutes before" duration, no check or validation is done.  Duane tested the actual notice-generation event part, and it results in notices sent out after the event has transpired; a 0-min reminder's notice came 5 minutes after the event (the 5 must be significant because that's the default textbox display value when one adds a new reminder).  These are non-desired results.

This has been fixed. Setting a negative time results in the reminder being ignored. 

The suggestion part; as you'll note in the above linked topic, the current Reminder frame's element layout can foster some ambiguity/fuzziness on adding/editing Reminders for Calendar-inexperienced folk (myself included at first look at it), coupled with thin/insufficient/unclear user-manual Calendar how-to info.  From a screen POV, my suggestion would be to rearrange the elements a bit or add some visible separator/delimiter, something to make absolutely clear the checkbox is not related whatsoever to the button above it or the AddReminder process, maybe something like in the attached.  Or alternatively maybe leave as is but change the checkbox to say "Send Reminder" instead of "Send Notice"?  Not sure which tweak(s) would work the best, but some tweak would help to make things crystal-clear. 

I've made the changes. Thanks for the clear, illustrated suggestion!

Mark 


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

I'm going to unfollow again now.
--
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: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:18 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
exactly like the situation under Mark's original proposal,
Yes. As I've said (frequently;), Mark's original proposal was fine with me even if it needs some tweaking as to amounts and/or limits.

you as a group member wouldn't use Samual's Paid User Proposal.
Yes because that's what THIS thread is about.

Going back to Mark's original post in this topic, maybe some kind-hearted group owner will allocate you a subscription from the "free member slots" they've purchased (plan base fee plus add-on per-member fee).
I see the two proposals as separate and I see Samuel's proposal as ruining the original one.
 
--
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: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

I see from this that Autofollow Replies takes precedence over Mute This Topic lol.


On Jan 11, 2021, at 1:18 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:


J,


A couple of years ago Meetup, which was formerly free, started to charge group owners a yearly fee. It provided group owners with a means of charging their members, but members were free to pay or not pay.

That sounds exactly like the situation under Mark's original proposal, plus a mechanism for voluntary payments by members (which I and others suggested).

There is no way I would have stayed in Meetup  if I, as a member, had had to pay a yearly fee simply to belong to the platform.

In the context of this topic I think what you're saying is that you as a group member wouldn't use Samual's Paid User Proposal. That's ok, Samuel's proposal doesn't require it of you. Going back to Mark's original post in this topic, maybe some kind-hearted group owner will allocate you a subscription from the "free member slots" they've purchased (plan base fee plus add-on per-member fee).

Shal


--
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: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

J,


A couple of years ago Meetup, which was formerly free, started to charge group owners a yearly fee. It provided group owners with a means of charging their members, but members were free to pay or not pay.

That sounds exactly like the situation under Mark's original proposal, plus a mechanism for voluntary payments by members (which I and others suggested).

There is no way I would have stayed in Meetup  if I, as a member, had had to pay a yearly fee simply to belong to the platform.

In the context of this topic I think what you're saying is that you as a group member wouldn't use Samual's Paid User Proposal. That's ok, Samuel's proposal doesn't require it of you. Going back to Mark's original post in this topic, maybe some kind-hearted group owner will allocate you a subscription from the "free member slots" they've purchased (plan base fee plus add-on per-member fee).

Shal


moderated Re: Pricing/Availability for mobile app #misc

Joanie
 

Duane, thanks for the pointer to the app release info.

Sandi,

I would like to keep in touch and see what you find out. You can send me private email at joanie.m.nightingale if you like. I've got a requirements document that I could share with you.

thanks so much for the response and I'm glad to see that other people are frustrated with finding a platform to support generic private club type volunteer groups.

Our group is a registered non-profit. Groups.io has worked for us but it really lacks a membership model, event ticket purchase, text chat, video chat and the mobile app. We've been plugging these holes with other apps and spreadsheets. We have a website that we use as our main presence on the web and interested parties are made members of the groups.io main group which we call our community. Our community group is broken down into various subgroups (board, volunteers, members, event specific planning, special interest groups(SIGs)). Each has need to calendar meetings and or events. Some events require purchasing tickets and some do not. members are those community members that have a paid membership and receive discounts on events. we have two levels of membership, single and couples. Volunteers are members from our community that help to plan and work at events. event specific planning are temporary groups that are set up for the duration of the event from conception to a final what we learned meeting and membership consists of all volunteers involved in that specific event. Then event planning files are archived for next year's team to look at. SIGs are groups that our members can self subscribe to for different activities like meetup groups (foodie, clubbing, skiing, golfing, ....). Each SIG has an community member that "owns" the group and does the admin. The board is our board of directors.

Our members have strong privacy requirements so that's why we can't use tools like facebook for our platform. We really like the groups.io model where each member can choose to either hide, or make visible, their profile. Currently we have 500 in our community but we think there is bloat there from inactive people. We have about 120 paid memberships and host 4 paid events per year.

Our younger members are really looking for a mobile device app because email is so antiquated for them. We would also really like to create an more automatic Facebook and Twitter presence. Right now those are manually and not really that interesting.

Hugs,

Joanie
River City Gems

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:09 AM Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:47 PM, Joanie wrote:
We are trying to find another tool to replace groups.io but then I stumbled on this group discussing a mobile app version of groups.io.
How interesting!

I have spent the last week researching existing apps to meet a "generic" club's needs and if it was feasible to design an app for specific groups. There are a number of apps used by clubs and sport teams that might more efficiently replace GIO for some. I have found apps that integrate messages, calendars, membership lists, surveys, etc for 200-500 members. This would effectively replace the "mailing list" use of a basic group with over 100 members but at a lessor cost ranging from $30-80 a year.  I sent some feelers out yesterday to the more promising apps. 

 
--
Sandi Dickenson


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Another day, another thought. The closest situation to groups.io that I can think of is Meetup. A couple of years ago Meetup, which was formerly free, started to charge group owners a yearly fee. It provided group owners with a means of charging their members, but members were free to pay or not pay. I never owned a group on Meetup but I was formerly a member of a couple of them. And I remember that the member payment was optional per group. There is no way I would have stayed in Meetup  if I, as a member, had had to pay a yearly fee simply to belong to the platform. And I think what it comes down is that's because I, as a mere group member rather than owner, did not have an investment in the groups I belonged to. I could participate as much or as little as I wanted to, I could disappear for long periods of time and come back (and having had to pay for all that time in between would have been a dealbreaker). So in thinking about the general philosophy, equities, and psychology of whether to charge just owners (who then could, if they so desired, request optional reimbursements from members) or charge members directly, I think it comes down to just that: who has the real investment in a group. And that's the owner.

To the person who scolded me a few days ago for posting what I didn't like about Samuel's plan without suggesting remedies ("criticizing without providing solutions," I think he called it), I refer to Mark's original post in this thread. He specifically asked for problems and why it should not be implemented. He did not ask for solutions.

And now I'll go hide under a rock again for the next few days, until something else occurs to me. :-)
--
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: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Duane
 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:59 AM, Paul Kanevsky wrote:
A simple tiered structure could work
That's already covered in the new pricing structure that goes into effect on the 18th, https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27191

This topic is about the possibility of individual members sharing the costs of running the site so that the entire burden isn't laid on group owners.

Duane


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Paul Kanevsky
 

I own a number of groups, the larger one is just about 5000 users. All hobby-related, some have been in existence for nearly 20 years. I can't see the group membership not falling drastically if members are required to pay individual annual fees. [Mod Note: Again, current groups are considered legacy and their pricing will not change.]

For my groups, I'd rather occasionally beg for donations than have each member deal with this individually. A simple tiered structure could work based on the number of members, something like this:

0-500 members = free (or free with ads)
1000 = $
2500 = $$
5000+ = $$$

It would be good to get a discount for pre-paying for a number of years. I'd rather fund-raise once every few years than every year. As the group exceeds a tier threshold, an additional payment may become required. This seems simple enough for anyone to understand, and the pricing and tiers can be adjusted over time. 

Regards,

   -Paul


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
 

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 09:25 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I'd like to have a different word than "paid" for these subscriptions, to avoid confusion with subscription slots purchased by the group
Perhaps mirror the same terms as the proposed group tiers. A Basic Member and a Premium Member. 

On another note, I think many are making this overly complicated. Right now if a new group owner were to create a basic group after Jan 18 and the 101st member applied to join a Basic group they can't join. Period. 

The same questions apply. Will they go on a waiting list for a vacancy? Will a non participating member be removed so the new one can join? Will the group owner elect to upgrade to Premium? If so, will all members now be forced to contribute to that cost? Who pays the $0.55 per member cost that is being proposed over the Premium capped member limit. 

Under the proposed plan of GIO paid account holders the GIO account holder would have the option to apply and be approved to join a Basic group as member 101. Nothing would change for any of the other existing group members nor for the owner of that Basic group if the group accepted their 101st member in this way.

Ditto for Premium groups for potential member 401. 

What this proposal does is to allow GIO account holders to join newly created groups that they otherwise could not join due to member caps. 

If right now, today, Mark had grandfathered legacy group owners in and said the legacy group could not increase membership, would you see things differently?

Please try to put yourself in the proposed new group owner's shoes. They want member 101 or member 401. Member 101 and Member 401 want to join. Members 101, 401 and upwards are willing to pay $3, $5, $10, etc a year to be able to join the myriad of GIO groups that will be created with membership caps after Jan 18th. 

After Jan 18, new group owners have tough choices. Who gets removed so as not to exceed 100 or 400? Who gets admitted if more than one person applies for their remaining slot?

After Jan 18 GIO account holders have a rough time of it. Applying for groups and being denied because it would send the group over their member limit. Keep searching in the hopes that a group under their member limits will be found. Or deciding to not use and not to recommend GIO because the groups they found and want to join are capped. 

I don't recall any other group/forum service that allowed individuals to create a personal account and then allows them to search for groups they are interested in and then, after applying, are told, "Sorry our group is full, you can't join until we have a vacant slot".

I think some group owners may not realize that people come to GIO, create their account and then search for groups to join. I did that. I searched, found and join existing groups long before I ever created a group.

I have read many a discussion from group owners about the GIO search process and how they aren't found as easily as they used to be. It's people with individual accounts that are joining groups. GIO needs individual account holders to remain viable under "a search to join group model. It seems to me that a good number of group owners opposing Samuels proposal envision GIO soley as a Hosting Platform for group owners.

Discussing Samuels proposal is about finding a way that would allow GIO account holders the opportunity to join capped membership groups. It's about offering ways for capped membership groups to grow in membership without forcing either the owner(s) to pay or forcing the owner(s) to collect money from their existing members so they can upgrade and accept member 101 or cover the per member expenses beyond member 400.
 
--
Sandi Dickenson


moderated Re: Pricing/Availability for mobile app #misc

Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
 

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:47 PM, Joanie wrote:
We are trying to find another tool to replace groups.io but then I stumbled on this group discussing a mobile app version of groups.io.
How interesting!

I have spent the last week researching existing apps to meet a "generic" club's needs and if it was feasible to design an app for specific groups. There are a number of apps used by clubs and sport teams that might more efficiently replace GIO for some. I have found apps that integrate messages, calendars, membership lists, surveys, etc for 200-500 members. This would effectively replace the "mailing list" use of a basic group with over 100 members but at a lessor cost ranging from $30-80 a year.  I sent some feelers out yesterday to the more promising apps. 

 
--
Sandi Dickenson


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Janice
 

I'm so very glad my group of about 1900 is a grandfathered Premium group which I pay $10 a month for out of my own pocket.  I kept that secret from my members for a long time.  Eventually, the members found out and a few have offered to send me $$$ to help.  I have told them I would rather they donate something to a no-kill animal shelter in lieu of sending me money and some do that.    I think that the idea of some people paying for membership and others not paying could make for unintentional friction among the members of a group.  People are funny that way.   The proposals I have read about seem cumbersome and a headache for an owner or Groups.io to manage.  I, myself, would rather put up with a few discrete advertisements then deal with the possible headaches for the proposed plans.  But, I know most would object to advertisements so that is not likely to happen.  Again, I am so grateful that my group is a grandfathered Premium group and I thank Mark for that perk.  I chose to set up a Premium group because I needed the higher MB storage option and occasionally use Direct Add.  We don't use any of the other Premium features.   I'm keeping my fingers crossed that my grandfathered status will not be done away with in the near or distant future.  

Janice B
New Statler Siblings Group Owner
Long Arm Quilters


moderated Re: Pricing/Availability for mobile app #misc

Duane
 

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 09:47 PM, Joanie wrote:
I'm looking for pricing and availability of the groups.io mobile app
The app is discussed in its own subgroup here.  The latest information was just released a couple of days ago - https://beta.groups.io/g/app/message/327  No mention has been made about charging for the app.

Duane


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

David,

More to the point, these people are not groupies. They just want
e-mails and the idea of making them have an account and login to pay
is not going to work. Simplicity for the members is the goal.
For those running such a group the choices seem stark: pay up, go small, or go elsewhere.

That is, pay extra for additional members (beyond the number included in your group plan), don't pay extra and Groups.io will limit the size of your group, or move your group to a service that uses third parties (advertisers) to pay for the service. Mark has said he's ok with the idea that Groups.io might not be the best fit for some types of groups.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27473

I have no idea what would work best, but wanted the perspective of
e-mail-only users considered.
As the founding owner of a handful of groups whose members interact entirely or almost entirely by email, I understand the concern.

Two of my groups are likely never to exceed 100 members; they are restricted groups, one for family and one for classmates - though the latter arguably should have attracted a greater fraction of the class and would then have been a few hundred members.

Another classmate group is a couple hundred members, and a PTA group that has ranged from about a hundred to several hundred.

I don't think I can honestly imagine what I'd have done, four to six years ago when I migrated those groups off of Yahoo Groups, if Groups.io had then the pricing structures proposed now. Or even the feature set reductions already enacted for new groups. I /think/ I would have gone ahead with Premium for the classmates groups, as I could likely count on those members to help pay for the Premium fee, either using the Donations mechanism or informally.

With the PTA it might be dicey. They do charge unit members $10/year dues and could use some of that to pay the premium base price and some per member add-on. But the executive board might well decide that the money would be better spent elsewhere since we don't really need or use the features of a Premium group.

But for someone running a large (1000+ member) hobby or volunteer group that needs only basic email...

If having members buy accounts is off the table (for a given group) then I don't know how it can work without a very low per-member charge (for members over 100) - something that isn't part of the discussion right now - and a very benevolent group owner willing to front that cost and maybe get a few key members to help him/her pay for it.

(I'm assuming that going to a Premium plan wouldn't work for such a group because it would be ruinously expensive with high membership and very little value gained if they don't need the Premium features).

Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Samuel,

My idea is not that paying members are "sponsoring" Groups.io.
Me neither.

I used "sponsored" to refer to slots paid for by the group owner (either as part of the base allotment or purchased with a per/member fee). In that sense it is a benevolent sponsoring of those members by the group.

The members that pay Groups.io for their account also need a word. "Paid account" is most accurate, but I also suggested "sustaining" or "at large". Not very happy with or wedded to any of the terms I've thought of so far for members with paid accounts.

Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:25 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
...I would refer to
as "sponsored" subscriptions.
I specifically avoided the word "sponsor" because to me the word "sponsor" implies some kind of benevolent act, which is different from the purchase of services.  When individuals "sponsor" something, it implies selfless giving.  My idea is not that paying members are "sponsoring" Groups.io.  They're buying a service.

(Its true that advertisers can "sponsor" something, but that's a special case.  And people who are looking for sponsors for e.g. an association or non-profit organisation may offer something in exchange, but that is the not same as buying.)


moderated Pricing/Availability for mobile app #misc

Joanie
 

Hi,

I represent the River City Gems charitable organization (www.rivercitygems.org and rivercitygems.groups.io) and we have been using groups.io for a number of years. We currently have the Premium membership. Just a little background. We are a private social group that hosts various social events and we provide a community forum so that all our members can communicate. We also use groups.io subgroup to organize and plan events with a subset of our community that volunteers. This is an all volunteer organization. The current email based system has served us well but most of our younger users only have a mobile device and they find the email interface a little cumbersome and antiquated. We are trying to find another tool to replace groups.io but then I stumbled on this group discussing a mobile app version of groups.io. I have not yet got my hands on it to test it but I hope that changes soon. We have been evaluating other tools and think we may have found something but we have to give up some features in groups.io that we like. Specifically the ability to have folders in the storage area, private storage for each subgroup and the integrated calendar function. A groups.io mobile app would probably solve our problem if we can wait for it and afford it.

I've read through some of the pricing discussion but there doesn't seem to be a good summary so I'll just ask here.

I've got a board meeting on the 18th to review some of the new applications so I'm looking for pricing and availability of the groups.io mobile app. I'm looking for something to take to the board meeting so share. Would the mobile app be included in the premium version for all users? If not, is there someone who can summarize the current options on the table? When would the app be released to general public? 

Hugs,

Joanie


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

J,

-Is the group owner supposed, or is groups.io going, to maintain a
wait list?
Neither.

Well, actually Groups.io but not in the way you're thinking.

-What about restricted groups with a questionnaire - are people
requesting admission supposed to complete the questionnaire knowing
they won't be admitted immediately, or perhaps not even knowing at
first?
Yes.

In my proposal the processing of pending members proceeds as normal, with the addition of telling the group moderator (in the pending email and in the Pending Approval tab of the Members list) of whether this applicant would need a group-sponsored slot, and if so how many such slots are available.

If a slot is not needed (the applicant has a paid account), or if one is needed and the moderator elects to apply one to this applicant, then approval proceeds as normal and the applicant becomes a member.

If a slot is needed and the group doesn't have any available, or the moderator elects not to apply one to this applicant, then approval makes this applicant an "inactive" member (that special status in my answer to Mark). Similar to NC status, the member cannot participate in the group (not even reading or receiving messages).

Like NC status this can be corrected after the fact. The member can correct it by paying for his/her account or a moderator can correct it by applying a sponsored slot to this member.

-Is the 14-day pending member limit (before deletion) going to be
removed?
With my scheme that needn't change: there's no new reason to hold someone in the Pending list; approve them with the knowledge that they may stay indefinitely inactive.

-In general, how and at what point, would or should requesting members
be notified that the group is temporarily full?
I'll have to think about whether the number of available sponsored slots should be shown in the group's home page and/or their directory listing. That would in some sense be friendly towards people with no means or desire to pay for their account, but it might lead to predatory behavior (over-subscribing to groups with available slots "just in case" or as a means of costing the group a valuable resource).

On the whole I'm inclined to say that the applicant finds out when they are Approved, and either become an active or inactive member. If the applicant is rejected then the question of available slots is moot, and they needn't have been informed sooner

-How, and this is not a technical issue, but how are group owners
supposed to figure out whom to remove (and how to inform them) if and
when a "more desirable" person requests admission?
Much of the heartache with this issue is reduced in my proposal, because you can inactivate a member to free a slot rather than removing them. Inactivation can and should be associated with a Member Notice by which the group says whatever they think needs to be said about the circumstances. But the key here is that the inactivation can be cured easily by the member or the moderator without all the overhead of removing them and having them re-apply.

-"Try before you buy" also sounds very tricky. How many people will be
allowed in on that basis? How would it be kept track of (in case
someone tries to repeatedly try), and other issues...
That's handled entirely by Groups.io. From the point of view of the group such people appear as paid accounts (no need to use up a slot). When their trial expires they go on Inactive status.

That event would be logged to the group's Activity page, and a group moderator can choose to receive a notice (like a "left group" notice). I don't know if it needs a separate control or just rolled into the moderator's subscription control for Members notices.

Shal


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Mark,

* Groups have a set number of "free member slots". Someone filling
one of these slots does not have to pay anything to Groups.io.
The number of included subscriptions (based on plan type) plus the additional per member fee slots purchased by the group I would refer to as "sponsored" subscriptions. The intent is to emphasize that those two types of subscription are equivalent: a limited resource that the group purchased through the base plan payment plus the per member payment. The group itself is sponsoring these members.

* Once the free member slots are filled up, someone wishing to be a
new member of the group would have to pay a yearly fee to Groups.io.
I'd like to have a different word than "paid" for these subscriptions, to avoid confusion with subscription slots purchased by the group. Possibly "sustaining" members. Maybe "at large" members, because they can join any* group (not just those with available "sponsored" slots).

*Any group that will have them - I'm not suggesting that they can bypass the approval process of Restricted membership groups.

* Are there any problems with this idea/reasons to not implement it?
I don't see any show-stoppers.

* Does there need to be a |try before you buy| period where someone
could subscribe to a group for 14 days (let's say) before having to
become a paid member?
That would likely make sense. Usually one doesn't know how well a group works for you without seeing the content and possibly interacting with other members.

At the end of the period perhaps put the subscription in a special inactive* status (rather than unsubscribing it). The status would operate like NC, Bouncing and Bounced in that the account would not be allowed to receive or post by email, nor use the group's web features. But unlike those, this would be a subscription status, not an account status (that is, the account could still participate in groups where it is sponsored).

*This inactive status is not to be confused with WRB's concept of actively posting versus passively listening (inactive, or lurking) members. Maybe I need a better word than "inactive" but I haven't thought of it yet.

The member can correct inactive status (or preferably preempt it) by paying for their account. The group owner could correct (or preempt) the inactive status by sponsoring the member.

One potential downside for Groups.io in this is that a "free trial" subscription may be all some users need. I'm thinking of "freecycle" style groups or help groups where once the transaction is complete or the help obtained the user may have no further interest in the group. Maybe that's ok, maybe it isn't.

* In Samuel's proposal, there's potentially a lot of member
management that has to be done by the owners and I wonder if we
reduce/simplify that?
I think the idea of an inactive membership (one that is neither sponsored by the group nor a paid account) provides a way create very easy management. If a group wants to free up a sponsored slot there can be a button/action to un-sponsor a subscription - which puts it into inactive status until corrected by the member choosing to pay for their subscription (or the group reversing its decision). This avoids a lot of the downsides of unsubscribing the member.

Group owners who want to actively manage their sponsorships will likely want the types of subscription metrics some have already been asking for. Things like most recent post, # of posts in the last year, etc.

Ideally this is something owners would not have to think about.
For groups owners who don't want to actively manage their sponsorships
I think simple mechanisms and suitable defaults can be devised that will produce reasonable results. The fundamental thing the owners must decide is which plan and how many sponsored members (if any, above the number included in the plan). After that it is a matter of choosing to actively manage the sponsorships or not.

Shal


moderated Re: Calendar Add/Edit Reminder issues #suggestion #bug

Duane
 

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 07:56 PM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:
Duane tested the actual notice-generation event part, and it results in notices sent out after the event has transpired; a 0-min reminder's notice came 5 minutes after the event
Actually, I set a -5 minute reminder which came after the event start.  Sorry I wasn't more clear on that.

Duane

2141 - 2160 of 29671