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

<<<It's that after posting it, you tried to stop communication about it by calling on Mark's rule about not debating the value of features. >>> I believe that you missed my point on my follow up. I

I personally would like to see a rule that the original owner that started the group on groups.io can’t be removed by any co-owner because there are some power hungry people out there that want to

I'm all about simple. Mr. X, if ever an actual owner, would have been required to assign Mr. Y as a second owner in order for Mr. X to be removed because it is not possible for a moderator to do so.

Mark; I think Bruce may have a good point there. Perhaps it depends on the scale of the problem; you will have a clearer view based on the traffic incoming to "support" than the members of beta or the

What about group owners having "groups.io living wills"? I don't see any other way around the situation where an owner *legitimately* goes missing or gets hit by the proverbial truck. Group owners

Another "amen" to that. I would urge the same. (Not much to worry about re ROW, by the way - not in this case.) -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My

You could perhaps apply a rule that to downgrade the Owner status in a group with three or more co-owners, action by at least two owners should be required. That would make some sorts of malice more

I understand Shal's point, but have a different reaction - and a partially European perspective FWIW. The giants of social media ( despite all the damage they have done and continue to do to privacy

Mark -- Some of the feature suggestions made here might have marginal utility to head some of this off. Other than that, I believe it is generally be in your best interest to avoid inserting yourself

Even that may not be as simple as it seems. It has happened (on YG!) that an owner went missing, but was not removed from the group. Some time later, someone got access to their account and created

My thought is that - rather than mess about establishing an extra 'founder' status - it should be set that the only person who can remove 'Owner' status (or delete such an id) is that person

As another European (UK, where we know a thing or two about divisive politics 😉), I agree with Victoria’s comment above. However, were my political views more different, I might feel that I did

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.

Mark, Certainly. tl/dr: "Having the right to do a thing does not make it the right thing to do". Agreed. I don't want that either. My concern has nothing to do with what organizations you wish to

I can vouch for that! -- 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

There's nothing negative about koans. They lead to enlightenment :) -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only

It's not that you posted it in an inappropriate place. It's that after posting it, you tried to stop communication about it by calling on Mark's rule about not debating the value of features. You were

> Can we keep this a short discussion? If so, I think having it here would be fine (my initial gut reaction was not to have it here, but creating a subgroup feels ... heavy). My concern would be that

Thanks Mark. For the record: 1. I didn't intend to post this request in an inappropriate board. I'm not a power user like J and others here, and I don't know elsewhere to post such a request. 2. I