I am in support of the proposal of GIO offering the option of a paid level of service to GIO account holders. GIO account holders who want to pay GIO a nominal sum should have a mechanism to do so.

I may be going off on a tangent, but thought I should toss this in. How about offering an annual membership to anyone that wants it, regardless of which groups they may be in or join. Even different

And by the way, if implemented, Samuel’s proposal (and in fact, any proposal in which members, rather than group owners, have to pay) woukd affect the entire system, not just groups created after

I have to agree with Dave. Way too complicated. I recommended groups.io to someone a few days ago. I unfortunately and reluctantly have to say that with things getting so complicated, I will have to

I have not read Marks' proposal in detail but from what I have it seems incredibly complicated. Although existing groups are grandfathered I can well imagine the case where an owner starts a new

(I assume they also pertain to when a premium group reaches its free-member cap.) I think the waiting list should simply be a useful way for the group owner to see and keep track who had tried to join

It is unclear from Mark's original announcement (which I will call the "status quo") whether premium groups can set a cap on memberships (so as to prevent moderators from adding 500 new members even

My immediately idea for a solution was: an e.g. 30-day (or 90-day) risk-free no-questions cancellation period. However, then I remembered that with Groups.io, new member applications are silently

Hi Mark, Truth be told, I'm not a fan of that Jan-2021 group membership cap plan, that's why I didn't participate in that topic then, I'm more in the additional pricing tiers vs

An inflexible idea is about as sellable as an inflexible proposal. Much of the structure of a house or other building is flexible and relatively weak until complete. That weakness is accepted

In programming, flexibility is the sibling of complexity, opposed to practicality (of implementation). Best, Glenn -- PG&E Delenda Est

Oh, one more thing: What happens if someone pays expecting to get into a particular group, then can't get in for whatever reason (not approved), and gets mad? JohnF

I like the concept of paid users conserving the number of free (or group-paid) slots for other users who can afford it. However, here are some other things that need to be thought about: Easy: Any

I think Samuel’s idea is flexible enough to explore as to practicality. Instead of focusing on the 100 person “limit”, how a 100 “active participant” limit instead. Most email-based groups

Hi Mark, It's a complex arrangement and as well as you try to explain it, I think there will be lots of people that just don;t get it. One of Samuel's opening comments in his message was that your

p.s. Re the waitlist, some sort of waitlist would seem necessary to prevent people from having to apply over and over again or just give up. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author,

I sort of liked Samuel's idea when I first saw it, but I see problems with it. All of the below pertain to when the group has reached 100: -Is the group owner supposed, or is groups.io going, to

Please read the original proposal and also understand, as previously stated, that existing groups would be considered legacy and not subject to per-member charges. Mark

What if existing groups were grandfathered? Best, Glenn -- PG&E Delenda Est

Quite honestly, if this were to happen, I'd have to leave groups IO completely. All of my followers are low income and if they have to pay just to recieve email updates from me, they will leave. I'll