Shal I didn't find anything paradoxical or zenish about your statements -- succinct and logical. I would appreciate a further discussion of the appropriateness of ANY discrimination left/right/up/down

Is it not the case that Mr. X made Mr. Y an admin, either directly or via some chain of people that Mr. X made admins? If so, this strikes me as entirely Mr. X's problem for trusting people that he sh

I follow most groups mainly via email. As far as I can tell the emailed version of a posted message does not include the assigned message number in that group. Sometimes it would be nice to look at an

#suggestion

The message # is at the bottom of the email.

#suggestion

Hi All, When we send an email, if we're unable to send it at the moment we get it, we put it in a queue and periodically retry sending it for 7 days, using an exponential backoff algorithm. Unfortunat

Rex, Look in the footer: Shal

#suggestion

If the facts are as they appear to be, then it seems the age-old problem of who you partnership with or get into bed with. Partnerships are designed to fail. I (think) I'd lean towards a policy of not

Oops. Sorry. No idea how I missed that. I'm not usually that clueless.

#suggestion

A likely story

#suggestion

Can we keep this a short discussion? If so, I think having it here would be fine (my initial gut reaction was not to have it here, but creating a subgroup feels ... heavy). My concern would be that I

It's not that you posted it in an inappropriate place. It's that after posting it, you tried to stop communication about it by calling on Mark's rule about not debating the value of features. You were

There's nothing negative about koans. They lead to enlightenment :)

Mark, Certainly. tl/dr: "Having the right to do a thing does not make it the right thing to do". Agreed. I don't want that either. My concern has nothing to do with what organizations you wish to supp

My thought is that - rather than mess about establishing an extra 'founder' status - it should be set that the only person who can remove 'Owner' status (or delete such an id) is that person themselve

Amen. Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth - am losing count... THIS! And all the other points Barry made. I will add one more point: after what Facebook allowed 3rd party companies to do with user data, and

Even that may not be as simple as it seems. It has happened (on YG!) that an owner went missing, but was not removed from the group. Some time later, someone got access to their account and created ha

Maria Caps for emphasis. Three words I believe? Certainly not intended to be inflammatory, but if taken that way PLEASE (LOL) substitute an underline or bold for caps. Theres a huge difference between

Mark -- Some of the feature suggestions made here might have marginal utility to head some of this off. Other than that, I believe it is generally be in your best interest to avoid inserting yourself

You could perhaps apply a rule that to downgrade the Owner status in a group with three or more co-owners, action by at least two owners should be required. That would make some sorts of malice more d

Another "amen" to that. I would urge the same. (Not much to worry about re ROW, by the way - not in this case.)