moderated
Re: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission
#suggestion
#done
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 06:10 PM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
A moderator will all other owner powers can keep a group functional indefinitely.Incorrect as of now. If that moderator can't give someone else moderator status, it would only last as long as that moderator did - end of group. Many of us don't see it as a "time bomb" since we've got co-owners. It's worked fine the way it is for over 5 years. Any change would need to be well thought out and consider the consequences of the action. My preference is to not change anything, but I wouldn't have a problem if an additional permission were required for a moderator to demote an owner. Duane
|
|
moderated
Re: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission
#suggestion
#done
txercoupemuseum.org
Ronaldo, et al...
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
There have been numerous opinions contributes here under the above subject, under [beta] "Protecting the original Owner from rogue co-Owners #suggestion”, and under [GMF] "Absentee Owner Succession feature” and [GMF] "What if Owner dies?”, each addressing (at least in part) the common concern of succession of a single owner in case of unexpected demise, departure or extended disability (and what then to do). There is no simple place to go or straightforward procedure specifically addressing the subject of moderators. Instead, we have to select a member by name, then click on “Role” after which the choices are “ owner Moderator” or “Member”. After choosing “ moderator”, there are no less than FIFTEEN optional “Permissions”, at least one of which permits a moderator to demote an existing owner. FIVE of these have in parenthesis further information, i.e. “(also allows…). None of them mention (“also can demote existing owner”). I cannot conceive WHY this time bomb, which now is common knowledge and undisputed. has not been defused. Either THAT option should be deleted or the power for a moderator to demote an existing owner should be removed such that this land mine in new group choices is defused. Either is effective, so whichever is easiest should be done. Once this is done, it is not necessary to appoint co-owners who would then have the immediate power to demote or remove the existing acting administrative owner. A moderator will all other owner powers can keep a group functional indefinitely. An so to the question of group leadership in case the Owner function is unexpectedly vacant, whether from unexpected personal emergency such as death or disability, or abandonment. In this regard, I think Groups.io needs to have a policy of requiring each group to have or select a single person as their contact for all official business. This is a matter for Groups.io legal staff to contemplate. If it were made part of revised “Terms of Service”, all related uncertainty is eliminated. Banks, telephone companies, etc. do this annually and even more often. Not something we clients of Groups.io need concern ourselves with. When this is done, concurrently Groups.io should go back to the place discussed in the second paragraph above. Following the “Role” of “owner (and before “Notifications”) there should be a place requiring an entry for an Owner/representative successor designation. This would be a blank where each group would be required to enter the name of a “contact” authorized to speak for the group in case of unexpected demise, departure or extended disability of a serving Owner. That person would have NO power whatsoever pending actual demise, departure or extended disability of a serving Owner. Problems solved! NO “cans of worms! WRB —
|
|
moderated
Re: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission
#suggestion
#done
Charles Roberts
What he said! Chuck
On Feb 15, 2020 5:10 PM, "Jeremy H via Groups.Io" <jeremygharrison@...> wrote: My thought (as expressed on GMF) is that there should be certain 'Owner only' privileges: I would suggest they are (1) the ability to make/unmake owners; (2) the ability to delete or rename their group; and (maybe) (3) the ability to set up a 'will file', as to what should happen if they go missing.
|
|
moderated
Re: Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission
#suggestion
#done
Jeremy H
My thought (as expressed on GMF) is that there should be certain 'Owner only' privileges: I would suggest they are (1) the ability to make/unmake owners; (2) the ability to delete or rename their group; and (maybe) (3) the ability to set up a 'will file', as to what should happen if they go missing.
Everything else can/may be granted to moderators, including the ability to make others moderator: one possible extension to moderator privileges is one to 'Set (for others) only moderator privileges that they have' (but not those they don't). The issue of what to do when the only owner of group goes missing is a another can of worms: as I see it, this is a situation that can only be fixed by Mark/Groups.io support intervention, for which they should have a published policy (which might be to do nothing). Jeremy
|
|
moderated
Re: log activity when someone responds to a poll
#suggestion
Oh, I think you mean you can edit the poll after people have already voted to show who voted for what. That's pretty bad.
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
moderated
Re: log activity when someone responds to a poll
#suggestion
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:05 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Ok. That’s very good to know. I’ve been wanting to do an anonymous poll in my group but always thought it was not possible.There's a very LARGE caveat. The poll can be edited so that the information is revealed! That might be considered a bug, or at least an undesired option. Once the "Do not show who responded to the poll" option is chosen, it shouldn't be changeable. Duane
|
|
moderated
Re: Default database view
#done
#suggestion
Perhaps, as someone else suggested, truncating HTML columns at a certain height might help.
However, in our particular use case we would like to hide other columns too. We just need to be able to display a few columns, then when the user clicks on a row they can view the entire record. Thanks, Chris
|
|
moderated
Site updates
#changelog
Changes to the site this week:
Have a good weekend everyone. Mark
|
|
moderated
Re: log activity when someone responds to a poll
#suggestion
Ok. That’s very good to know. I’ve been wanting to do an anonymous poll in my group but always thought it was not possible.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:10 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
--
J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
moderated
Re: log activity when someone responds to a poll
#suggestion
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 07:29 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
That depends on the answer to "Do not show WHO who responded to the poll"? Does it mean, don't even show the mods? I was under the impression it just meant "don't show the group."On the two I looked at, not even an owner or poll creator can see who responded, being truly anonymous (except for the hidden record that keeps track of each persons response in case they want to change it.) Keeping it from most members is covered by the "Only moderators and poll creators can view results and responders, regardless of whether the poll is open or closed." option. Duane
|
|
moderated
Re: log activity when someone responds to a poll
#suggestion
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 04:46 PM, Duane wrote:
I realized that if implemented, there should be no logging if the poll is set up for "Do not show who responded to the poll" is chosen.That depends on the answer to "Do not show WHO who responded to the poll"? Does it mean, don't even show the mods? I was under the impression it just meant "don't show the group." -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
moderated
Re: log activity when someone responds to a poll
#suggestion
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 07:34 PM, Bill Hazel wrote:
Could "responded to poll" be added as an activity in the logs (group's member activity log, and individual member activity log)?While researching something else, I realized that if implemented, there should be no logging if the poll is set up for "Do not show who responded to the poll" is chosen. Duane
|
|
moderated
Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki
#meta
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 05:43 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I agree also. But it's already in the Guidelines page.Oops, I hadn't seen it there. Maybe have the Guidelines sent on join (and every month?), with a "lock immediately" hashtag. Or make a locked post with only the charter and sticky it since the 'help' info is a sticky wiki. Really anything that is more obvious. (Time for a RED subject line? ;>) Duane
|
|
moderated
Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki
#meta
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 03:39 PM, Duane wrote:
#fixed and #done are moderator hashtags, not for users. They would be added if/when that state is reached.That brings up the issue, which occurred to me last night, of what happens when a bug is tagged #fixed by Mark and it turns out not to really be fixed. Does Mark remove the tag? In the cases I've noticed so far, they've retained the tag. But that's probably an issue for another thread. I do agree that there should be an easy place for others, especially newcomers, to find the mandate(s) for the group. A sticky, either post or wiki page, would seem to be the most noticeable.I agree also. But it's already in the Guidelines page. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
moderated
Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki
#meta
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:52 PM, JediPirx wrote:
These are the currently available category hashtags for users :#fixed and #done are moderator hashtags, not for users. They would be added if/when that state is reached. I do agree that there should be an easy place for others, especially newcomers, to find the mandate(s) for the group. A sticky, either post or wiki page, would seem to be the most noticeable. Duane
|
|
moderated
Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki
#meta
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 02:39 PM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
I don’t agree with everything J saysWhat??? You don't? Tsk, tsk! :-) -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
moderated
Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki
#meta
txercoupemuseum.org
Hear, Hear.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I don’t agree with everything J says, but she obviously thinks before posting and her opinions often worthy of consideration. WRB —
|
|
moderated
App is starting to become accessible
#misc
Hi All, A lot of work on accessibility was just merged into the app. It's not complete (like the app itself), but many of the screens and menus should be accessible now. If you use a screen reader on iOS and are interested in giving feedback, please join the app subgroup and install the app, following the instructions here: https://beta.groups.io/g/app/message/2 All app feedback should be sent to the app subgroup. Thanks, Mark
|
|
moderated
Re: Add Charter Rules to Wiki
#meta
Unfortunately I have to say "I disagree" with the vast majority (or at least a whole lot) of this. I don't know where it's coming from. It does not seem to be coming from the original "charter" that Mark posted, but seems to stem from a subsequent suggestion by someone else. Just for example, this Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
moderated
Add log entry for pending subscription timing out
#suggestion
The suggestion is to include a group activity log entry for when a pending subscription times out and is deleted after 14 days.
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|