I don't find the thread tiresome. It has begun to interest me since I discovered all new "free" groups must have under 100 members. If you don't like what's being said, don't read it. There is no way

I think what would be really useful as the thread now becoming slightly confrontational is that Mark bring this discussion to a close with a statement either re-iterating his pricing structure going

And why do you go to work, exactly? I would argue that the purpose of Groups.io is to provide a service. At some point in the chain providing that service costs money, and the person coordinating

Okay, well in that case, I think we can be clear that the purpose of Groups.io is to make money, and free groups have a limited and specific set of purposes, namely (a) it allows people to play around

Well Mark, here's one for you. I wouldn't mind volunteering my time approving groups or answering support questions if I had the ability on my account. So please keep that into consideration. I manage

Mark, I hope you mean that only in the sense Mike suggested (becoming a non-profit). I think a simplified Donation mechanism (which doesn't require the group owner to set up an account at Stripe)

For whatever it's worth, I think M K really nails it. Mark has built a wonderful platform here and without team. If anything, I'd like to see him grow it more rapidly...with outside capital or

For many of us, groups.io is indispensable after Yahoo shut down. We are getting outstanding support from him. Unless it makes sufficient profit to keep Mark in business, it will fail and many of us

Of course not - particularly since you raised the possibility on this forum just over a year ago.

I started Groups.io (my coding on it started 7 years ago as of next week) because I feel strongly that email groups have distinct advantages over web fora and other discussion mediums for some types

Neither do I in both cases. My own preference is for Ken Schweizer's suggestion to be at least considered, i.e. making individual account holders liable for a subscription. I know that some have

Mike, I don't believe that relying on donations is the way to go, and I won't be pursuing that. Also, I don't see how changing the pricing structure for future groups could be considered a 'bait and

I have been in iogroups for a few years once I saw yahoo going down hill. I and another owner of my group have paid for the group since the beginning. I dont feel it is a burden at all and I have the

I have demanded nothing J Catlady, including non-profit. Where do you get this stuff? What I have suggested, not demanded, is a balance that I believe the present track lacks and reasons behind my

> but the sad fact (that Mark must have realised in the end) is that most basic groups have no intention of paying... ever. Samuel Another method, albeit minor,) just occurred to me. GemCo used to

You don’t have to be a nonprofit to have an ethical company that makes a positive contribution to society. “Anything less” than a nonprofit is certainly not a “lose-lose.” To your repeated

#suggestion Requesting addition of feature which enables a forum-like view and a directory tree-like view of the topics/messages sections as optional viewing styles.

Please read again my main points about trust and common good. Nobody is suggesting anyone work for free or anything less than reasonable wage. Nobody. Even those running non-profits and B corporations

Duane said: >While the system may handle things well on average, >it's the peak load that determines what infrastructure is >needed to support the site, and that has a cost. >I'll continue to

I apologise if I had misunderstood what you meant. Looking back, I think it must have been the word "so" that threw me off :-) Anyway, it doesn't matter. My reply basically speculated about (a)