Hi All, I've made the following changes: - Moderators can no longer change the roles of owners. - Moderators can no longer change the subscription settings of owners. - The `/updatemember` API call

Wow, I did not get any of that at all from Chris' email. Discussing how GMF works is objectively off-topic for beta, which is to discuss features for groups.io. Best,

“...wildly off - topic for beta”. Ahhh, the not-so-hidden sneer of the superior to the inferior. The polite way to remind someone to not forget their “place" in the overall scheme of things

Gotcha. Best, Glenn -- PG&E Delenda Est

I think that's because mostly, the people in GMF rather than beta are not as knowledgeable about the product (pretty much by definition - they are sent to GMF rather than beta to ask their basic help

Ah; a misunderstanding. I was responding to the comment that it was only moderators who answer questions on GMF. I said take away the moderators, not take away the moderation! In other words if the

I generally agree with what Chris is saying here, but I will add that moderation is stylistic, just like anything else. I very strongly suspect that all of us in our own groups moderate

Although this is wildly off - topic for beta one reason is that many Group Owners on GMF only go there to pose a question and look at the responses; they don't go there to try to help others and

 What WRB said, 2x........ My Opinion: The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go to seek help. At least that's my understanding. Too often, an OP receives a chastation for not crossing

Comments below in “< >”. Best! WRB — <Whether this sentence is started with the word “probably” or “possibly”, it is personal speculation which does not serve to move the discussion

yes Probably because it requires a shedload of programming, and/or Mark hasn't gotten around to it. No, it needs to be REFINED. We seem to all agree that a *moderator* needs to be able to appoint

I'm working through the groups and it's taking some time. It's not that it's a lot of groups, but the process takes some time for each message. Also, I'm going from most space used to least, so you'll

Mark -- Just following up on this. Per Friday's changelog, the attachment purges appear to have been implemented, but it's not happening in one of my groups. I have 13% attachments, 38% photos and

On GMF under the topic "Membership Metrics” there was an exchange between a contributor and a moderator. Following that exchange, the contributor posted:

Mark, It has happened a few times now that I've composed an explanatory note when rejecting a message, only to find when I completed the edit that the message had already been approved or rejected by

I would appreciate if someone could explain the rationale to me that would make it reasonable for any Moderator to be able to demote any Owner, (or any Moderator senior to them). Chuck

Incorrect as of now. If that moderator can't give someone else moderator status, it would only last as long as that moderator did - end of group. Many of us don't see it as a "time bomb" since we've

Ronaldo, et al... There have been numerous opinions contributes here under the above subject, under [beta] "Protecting the original Owner from rogue co-Owners #suggestion”, and under [GMF]

What he said! Chuck

My thought (as expressed on GMF) is that there should be certain 'Owner only' privileges: I would suggest they are (1) the ability to make/unmake owners; (2) the ability to delete or rename their