RE: Free/Basic groups can allow sponsorships. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sound like Free/Basic groups are not able to Allow Sponsorships. But, rather Free/Basic groups must upgrade to a Premium

Fantastic idea. Not sure how I missed it. (Must have been hiding under my rock at the time, aka had the thread muted.:) It completely avoids all the objections I’ve expressed about member fees,

Shal, Can I trouble you to confirm whether (or not) you are still seeing this effect? I certainly am still seeing it. I wonder whether there is anyone (outside PST) who is seeing the correct times in

Hi All, I have just pushed a new group sponsorship feature, based on Shal's and Samuel's proposals. Here are the details: In Group Settings, there's a new Allow Sponsorships checkbox, with the help

Exactly right. Grandfathered groups are actually not even worthy of discussion in what happens going forward because they will start to be a smaller and smaller fraction of the total groups. And in

Yes, but the purpose of this thread is not to discuss what the potential downsides of grandfathering is. Your objection would apply even if my proposal isn't implemented. If a user applies for

Shal, if you exclude grandfathered groups then the new groups that had to and will continue to have to pay, will be at a disadvantage. So unless Mark is trying to constrain the formation of new groups

We are going even beyond speculation to even discuss but i would assume that included your future members as well. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My

Pete, I cited my reason for thinking so at the time: Mark's request that we keep the feedback coming. A week later and Mark created this topic. That confirms that he's listening and considering.

Scott, Because your group is grandfathered it has an unlimited number of "free slots". Meaning that no one joining it would face a paywall were the OP of this topic implemented. I don't think Mark

If only my current members are grandfathered, a $2.50 user paywall would stop any new members from joining my group. It would die. This is why any group member charge (vs system user paywall

It’s not clear that the idea is even under consideration by Mark. It’s just something that someone threw out there in this thread. But my assumption would be that whatever the new plan turns out

RE: "Second, you're already grandfathered in, as I understand it." Again, being "already grandfathered" would be inconsequential, if a $2.50 paywall was added in front of us.

I thought of that and immediately blew it off. This whole idea pits groups against each other. "This one is free," "that one charges," etc. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author,

First of all, I'm not in favor of Drew's "everyone pays $2.50" proposal. I just think it's heaps better than Samuel's proposal where you have to pay to get into a group if you've over the group limit.

J, I was going to suggest that perhaps there should be a plan that includes no free slots, for group owners of your persuasion. But there's a numeric question that comes into play: In Mark's original

"Everyone" paying $2.50 is not better for "everyone". Please, each group has different circumstances. I don't want a $2.50 user paywall added to access my group. It will die. And I suspect that many

If the new price changes reflect the cost of doing business. large, free lists like mine will not be grandfathered forever, I plan on in two or three years having to become a paid list or

Right. IMO too complicated, both logistically and politically/psychologically. Better for everyone to pay the yearly $2.50 completely unrelated to any specific group. Drew's suggestion. --

J, In my opinion: no refunds. The site would say that before you pay (we're talking about $2.50 here). Others have suggested that Groups.io have a generous no-questions-asked refund policy. I'm fine