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

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.

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

Michael 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

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

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

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

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

Agree. Agree. It is important to keep in mind that we address group OWNERSHIP here, not LEADERSHIP. Clarity, not democracy should be the primary goal(s). If the wording of Bruce’s suggestion

Duane, If there is more than one Owner, a Moderator can remove other Owner(s). Some Owners may wish to have more than one Owner... Michael

FWIW, several years ago I joined a Yahoo group with a dead Owner and four Moderators, three of which inactive. The active Moderator promoted me to Moderator. I petitioned Yahoo for help. They had

It should if there is no other owner. I believe Mark has it set up so that the last owner cannot be removed, nor remove themselves. Duane

From extensive discussions both on GMF and here on beta, I think there are three separate issues relating to ensuring the integrity and continuity of group administration. The first issue is

Good proposal. However this does not prevent a Moderator with "Remove Members (also allows access to the member list)" privileges from removing an Owner.

Bruce's suggestion neatly takes care of the first of three related issues that have been, and continue to be, discussed at great length in the GMF group. As such, I strongly support Bruce's

I am 100% in favor of Bruce's suggestion. If an owner is worried about sudden unexpected death, tgey can choose a few moderators and privileges of each and the group can still function. The only

No :)

Mark - I concur with Shal's comments. I would like to have a moderator that can approve members, and if necessary, promote others to moderators. However I have seen such a situation where a person has

Mark, I concur with Lena, Chris, J, and Linda: that permission should extend to promoting members and demoting mods, but it should not permit any changes to/from the Owner role. Nor should it (or

(Taken from the thread about display names in banning/removing, now that I would classify it as a bug:) It seems intuitive that removing and then banning a member should have the same results as just