I wonder if Groups.io has considered charging subscribers directly instead of charging group owners. It could be a multi-tier system, for example: - FREE: Subscriber can be a member of up to three

Yes, the moderator could have refused my comment The question remains how people outside the US should prove non-profit status groetjes, Ronaldo

So would Carol and Ted. (groan....) -- 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 like the idea of having a method to accept donations - especially if the primary motivation is to support the group's existence on Groups.io. I've reminded people that Groups.io is and has been 100%

Very minor bug. When 0 drafts (or anything) selected for discard (or whatever), confirmation message should read "No [xyz]s selected" instead of "are you sure." -- J Messages are the sole opinion of

I must say I have found this thread a bit depressing. As we go through life we encounter all sorts of people we don't want as "bosom buddies" but we have to get along with them on some level and thus

Bruce, Mark, Or better still, check the signature and apply a badge of some kind to the message indicating that there was a signature and whether it was valid or invalid. Right now, if the group

Agree, that's the point I was making. Best, Glenn -- PG&E Delenda Est

Glenn, This already happens for each member's mute or follow choices. So not much new about that part. It doesn't matter whether Charlie uses individual vs digest, nor email vs web. All that matters

That's correct. Based on past history, in all likelihood it would never be affected as long as you don't upgrade.

For 950 members I believe it would be $522.50 per year, not $2,000. The per-member fee is for all members above 400, so $220 base + 550 x $0.55. Per Mark: Premium Starting at $20/month or

I may be misunderstanding, but I gather that my 20-year-old group of 950 members that was migrated to groups.io in late 2019 and is now a basic rather than a premium group would not immediately be

It also blocks the next page arrow:

BTW, the idea of charging extra for "premium" features over an otherwise free use-of-product goes by the name "freemium", according to Wikipedia, been around since the 1980's. I see this as being most

But on further reflection, I think this leads to madness. Alice and Bob don't like each other and mute each other. Both are on digest, so the system has to figure out, on a member by

My biggest concern is the "low" limit on the number of members for each level of groups. I currently have 5 groups, one a test group. All except the test group were started almost 6 years ago. The

Ah... I did scan much of the messages but there were so many ;-) Well, not for me to say what would be a maintenance headache. There would have to be some programming added to the group sign-up re

That idea occurred to me early in this conversation but it frankly seems like it would be even more maintenance headache/overhead. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the

Here's another way to slightly monetize a group that would be low pain, to help cover costs of running everything: Have two basic levels, one free as defined now, and one for $25 flat fee per year

That explains everything! I knew there was a reason I liked it. :) -- 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