J, Ok, got it. I think. Earlier I misunderstood your objection as being a concern that Groups.io would require members to pay for their memberships. Hence my responses about it actually being

There’s another potential problem with groups.io charging members directly (in any proposal, Samuels or otherwise) and that is pet (or even human) health groups where medical issues are discussed.

We run a non-profit organization which provides socialization opportunities for people with a secret alternative lifestyle. You could think of this as a secret society for those who are not "out" yet

As I said, maybe it could be enhanced. -- 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

And I am fine with Mark’s original plan, which I said as the first responder in his thread and have reaffirmed ever since. I have been responding in THIS thread to Mark’s *explicit request* for

But not on Basic groups. The method being discussed allows anyone to 'buy-in' to support GIO, owner or not, but IS NOT required. I maybe wrong, and Mark should correct me if I am, but the new pricing

No. Anything less than 1 minute before the event is ignored. Mark

Since people are contacting me offlist now, I've been forced out from under my rock again and am going to answer: I don't see Samuel's proposal in any way equivalent to the Meetup situation or any

If you have a 'number of members' based charging scheme, then members become a cost, that someone has to pay. In Mark's original scheme, this would fall solely on group owners. Some will be happy

Surely a '0 minutes before' #cal-reminder is actually a #cal-notice! :-) Andy

Hi Mark, Thanks for the quick response! One question, just to clarify; >>> This has been fixed. Setting a negative time results in the reminder being ignored. So a 0-minutes before reminder still is

This has been fixed. Setting a negative time results in the reminder being ignored. I've made the changes. Thanks for the clear, illustrated suggestion! Mark

I'm going to unfollow again now. -- 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

Yes. As I've said (frequently;), Mark's original proposal was fine with me even if it needs some tweaking as to amounts and/or limits. Yes because that's what THIS thread is about. I see the two

I see from this that Autofollow Replies takes precedence over Mute This Topic lol. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for

J, That sounds exactly like the situation under Mark's original proposal, plus a mechanism for voluntary payments by members (which I and others suggested). In the context of this topic I think what

Duane, thanks for the pointer to the app release info. Sandi, I would like to keep in touch and see what you find out. You can send me private email at joanie.m.nightingale if you like. I've got a

Another day, another thought. The closest situation to groups.io that I can think of is Meetup. A couple of years ago Meetup, which was formerly free, started to charge group owners a yearly fee. It

That's already covered in the new pricing structure that goes into effect on the 18th, https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27191 This topic is about the possibility of individual members sharing the

I own a number of groups, the larger one is just about 5000 users. All hobby-related, some have been in existence for nearly 20 years. I can't see the group membership not falling drastically if