I have no interest in working with members of beta in formulating a "consensus" of any of the suggestions I propose (many of which, I can say, have been implemented by Mark). I am not an employee of

Simon's idea and others - It really doesn't matter whether the discission or let's call it "fine-tuning" is accomplished here (beta) or a subgroup, or a whole different group. A name is just a name,

Referring to Simon's idea. -- 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

I love this idea. -- 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

I'd like to suggest that it's done the other way around, with Beta as the more open freer group where "proposals" can be discussed. Then if Mark endorses them he create a post in a subgroup for

In addition, sometimes a banned member is described as "banned" in the Past Members list but does not even appear in the Banned list. And on top of that, the date field in the Banned list now shows

The proposal process seems too complicated to me. If I want to make a simple suggestion like, "I think the background color should change to orange on Halloween," I don't want to have to go through a

"something like "this group will start functioning februari 30th, 18.45 UTC" Nice idea, but why limit it to SUBgroups? groetjes, Ronaldo

Oops, looks like it's Portuguese, not Italian. -- 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. -

I'm not sure what kind of bug this is, but it seems that at least in the one case attached here, a reply via email by someone in Italy attached the preface "RES", instead of "Re:," which caused lack

Yes and there's some similar funkiness with merging and splitting. The titles are not kept in synch. Noticed this a long time ago, but since I no longer merge or split, including rarely changing a

Hi Mark, I noticed that two of the new topics (69961750, 69961762) you copy-created over from Canny have duplicate threads already existing in beta. (I know because I'm the perpetrator of both the

It's not a terrible idea, but I don't think Mark would necessarily get the best product from that. The features he's thinking about at any given time are unlikely the ones where people have a great

Mo, I think this is a good suggestion. Perhaps one way to solicit suggestions for a specific features would be for Mark to create a message asking for input on that subject, example: "Looking for

Greetings, Short version: Here's a glitch, in short, at least in beta, when one replies through the online interface to an existing message which had its original subject altered by removing a

Sorry, my bad. They are still there. I missed the "More" feature. -- Gerald

Mark, The list of hashtags seems to be smaller than it was previously. Were #misc and #fixed and perhaps others deleted intentionally? #misc I am OK with losing as it is the same as no hashtag. --

I have a different idea. Mark what is your vision for groups.io or are you at the stage of needing input for new tech? Maybe instead of a free for all we concentrate on one area of the system at a

UPDATE: I followed a new beta topic today (https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/new_group_charter/69937945) and the auto-generated catch-up emails came in mixed, some did have the [beta] tag, others

Hello Currently, if you want to read messages via the web site, you can either use non-expanded view (which shows only a very short preview of each message, without line breaks) or expanded view,