Michael, I am not in disagreement, I just thought I would try to "herd" the requirements into a summary. It seems that a lot of the topics go back and forth. I like to see the process ending up in a

Good point, as there currently is not a good feature to require answers for applicants. The current Pending Member feature is used by some as an "Additional Information to join required" while others

LOL. -- 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

Whoops. Didn't mean to send that blank reply to Bob's message (I completely agree with everything he said). Mark

Good idea in theory, but I would not add that, even if there is an active pending notice, because even if there is one, it may not require a response. It's conceivable that some groups simply send a

Gerald, Yes, but will would-be subscribers understand: "Your request to join this group will expire in 14 days, unless you request has been claimed by a group Moderator or Owner"... I'd like to see

That doesn't make sense to me. If there's no default, the default becomes opt-out? Duane

What I hear is that we all would like not only a system for inputting change requests but a method of tracking them and, when they are complete, a simple way to know they are completed. That's all

Ken, This is the second time that I can recall that you've used the (apparently) pejorative term "left coast reasoning". I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but I do know that the judging

Our group requires someone to tell us something about why they are interested in our group before we approve. Member notices are active and edited appropriately and are sent to them explaining what

I agree that a member search function is needed. As far as the opt in/opt out debate, I would think that would be a group's decision. The way I would handle it is to make the Owner/Administrator

>>>On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 02:17 PM, J_Catlady wrote: As I've lamented before - left coast reasoning. LOL. G explicitly stated (and I believe that J and C are missing that point) -- NOT add a tag

Of course not, which is the point I've been trying to make from square one. You are adding special symbols to imitate or effectively create a tag. I'm giving you kudos for the creativity. Don't put it

>>>On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 03:57 AM, J_Catlady wrote: PS - no one cannot currently add a tag to a msg body. One can add or edit some text into it that could later be searched on, but that is not

If effectively does this by creating a new thread out of the single message, as I explicitly said. Your method of inserting special symbols into an individual message may be useful but I think falls

>>>On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 04:19 AM, J_Catlady wrote: NO, C's method does not create a tag on the individual message. And the 1st line above doesn't make logical sense anyway. One cannot tag an

That's already there. -- 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

Perhaps there should also be two other pieces of info: 1. Timeout: Specify how long before this expires 2. Not you: What to do if you didn't want this (eg - ignore) -- Gerald

Aah, yes. So... ------------------------------------------------------ Thank you for your interest in Groups.io and the group "WHATEVER". Please reply to this e-mail to confirm your e-mail

I have mentioned here a couple of times that I think another aspect of the confirmation request wording is misleading. namely, the word "complete." The email directs the person to reply in order to