Topics

moderated +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?


Bruce Bowman
 

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 04:34 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I think the moderator's Owner Email option to receive +owner messages or not should remain a subscription option, equivalent to their Notifications checkboxes or for that matter to their Email Delivery option to receive group messages or not. That is, I think shared control (either the subject mod or an owner can change it) is wholly appropriate.
Starting a new thread here, as we've digressed enough already, and I regret having contributed to that.

I agree with Shal's comment above. One advantage of having +owner email delivery be a preference rather than a permission is to allow folks to go on vacation (or whatever) and control which emails are sent to them, without the Owner having to intervene every time. The whole of groups.io is designed to let each individual decide what emails are sent their way; this is just another example of that.

Perhaps less convincingly, with 15 permissions checkboxes already present in a Moderator setup screen, I'm inclined to push back on the notion that it needs further expansion. There are a number of Moderator permissions that are set by the mere fact that a person is a Moderator; and as others have noted, +owner messages (at least from existing subscribers) are already accessible to those Mods who have access to member records. 

Hope this helps,
Bruce


 

I think it should be a preference *and* a permission. First, a permission by the owner (does the owner want this mod to be privy to all owner messages), and if so, a preference by the mod (does that mod want to receive the emails for owner messages, or just have access to them in their member Notes page).

What's still getting lost here, or seems to be, is that currently, all mods have access to owner messages by members via the member Notes page, so the permission to see such messages already automatically exists. I think it shouldn't, and the two alternatives for ways around it I see are (1) make access to member Notes pages a specific permission (something I've been asking for, and I think received some support for here, in the past), or (2) make access to owner emails a specific permission (this would entail the Notes page including owner messages only if the permission was granted).

A minor detail is what to do with owner messages from non-members in the two cases. If (2), that would be taken care of automatically. If (1) (Notes page access), it would have to dealt with explicitly.
--
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


Michael Pavan
 

I suggest:

1) That +owner messages should only be able to be sent by an Owner or Moderator that WILL receive replies to those messages.

2) If an Owner or Moderator later sets themselves to not receive +owner emails,
that Owner or Moderator should STILL receive replies to any +owner emails they sent.

3) If an Owner, or Moderator with "Set Moderators Privileges" turns off whether a Moderator will receive +owner emails,
that Moderator should NOT be able to turn them back on, nor send +owner emails,
UNLESS they have "Set Moderators Privileges" AND turn their receiving +owner emails back on.
[This would control if a Moderator can send a +owner message, but perhaps it could be done another way]

4) Log entries should also specify what was turned on or off, along with the current: who changed who's and when.
Now changes made (in Admin > Members, clicking on Moderator's row) are logged:
[15 Moderator Permissions (on/off), 6 Notifications (on/off), and Owner Email (1 of 3) = 22],
and each results in (up to 22) identical, unidentified log entries:
'who' changed 'who's' moderator permissions via web with <time and/or date>
(including if the change is by you of you).
But the same changes made (in Subscription) are not logged - but should be:
[6 Notifications (on/off), and Owner Email (1 of 3)].


Jeremy H
 

To start, there are two things which any discussion on this subject has to start from:
1) Sending and receiving '+owner' messages are two sides of the same coin.
2) Within groups.io, 'Moderator' can mean many things from 'owner in all but name' (with full powers) to 'trusted member allowed to do a few extra things' (that ordinary members aren't)

Having said that, my thoughts are:
1) The ability to send and receive/read '+owner' messages should be a moderator permission, granted by the owner as others, and with three options: (i) send and receive/read; (ii) receive/read only; and (iii) no access. (whether it can be done as one, or needs to be done as two, is a technical issue). 
2) Whether a moderator (permitted to receive/read such messages), receives them as e-mails, or is just able to read them on line should be a preference they can set, as with ordinary group messages: whether it can use the same preference setting(s) as ordinary messages, or should be its own setting, is something I'm ambivalent over.
3) There follows a group management issue (nothing to do with the technicalities/software/group.io service per se), that the owner should be clarifying his expectations to any moderator with this privilege - as to whether they should be pro-active and instantly responding, or not.

So I think I'm essentially with J_Catlady on this one.

Jeremy


 

I think it’s too bad that these are called +Owner messages (on either side of the coin) rather than something like +Admin messages, when sometimes mods who may not be owners can send and/or receive them. Perhaps this is a holdover from yahoo, having an owner email address. I would make a radical change and make it +Admin. I think this would eliminate a lot of confusion, no matter what is decided re permissions and delivery preferences.

I would also keep in mind, during this while discussion, that the member Owner Messages page under their Notes page will have to be adjusted according to the permission setting, if access to read the messsges is made an explicit permission.


On Aug 15, 2019, at 2:31 AM, Jeremy H via Groups.Io <jeremygharrison@...> wrote:

To start, there are two things which any discussion on this subject has to start from:
1) Sending and receiving '+owner' messages are two sides of the same coin.
2) Within groups.io, 'Moderator' can mean many things from 'owner in all but name' (with full powers) to 'trusted member allowed to do a few extra things' (that ordinary members aren't)

Having said that, my thoughts are:
1) The ability to send and receive/read '+owner' messages should be a moderator permission, granted by the owner as others, and with three options: (i) send and receive/read; (ii) receive/read only; and (iii) no access. (whether it can be done as one, or needs to be done as two, is a technical issue). 
2) Whether a moderator (permitted to receive/read such messages), receives them as e-mails, or is just able to read them on line should be a preference they can set, as with ordinary group messages: whether it can use the same preference setting(s) as ordinary messages, or should be its own setting, is something I'm ambivalent over.
3) There follows a group management issue (nothing to do with the technicalities/software/group.io service per se), that the owner should be clarifying his expectations to any moderator with this privilege - as to whether they should be pro-active and instantly responding, or not.

So I think I'm essentially with J_Catlady on this one.

Jeremy

--
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


 

Sorry, I keep erroneously saying the Owner Messages page is under the Notes page. Of course, it’s not. It’s separate. 

Also, since the ability to reply to the messages exists from that page, the page would have to be adjusted in that regard as well according to the permission, if this is made a permission.


On Aug 15, 2019, at 4:29 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I think it’s too bad that these are called +Owner messages (on either side of the coin) rather than something like +Admin messages, when sometimes mods who may not be owners can send and/or receive them. Perhaps this is a holdover from yahoo, having an owner email address. I would make a radical change and make it +Admin. I think this would eliminate a lot of confusion, no matter what is decided re permissions and delivery preferences.

I would also keep in mind, during this while discussion, that the member Owner Messages page under their Notes page will have to be adjusted according to the permission setting, if access to read the messsges is made an explicit permission.


On Aug 15, 2019, at 2:31 AM, Jeremy H via Groups.Io <jeremygharrison@...> wrote:

To start, there are two things which any discussion on this subject has to start from:
1) Sending and receiving '+owner' messages are two sides of the same coin.
2) Within groups.io, 'Moderator' can mean many things from 'owner in all but name' (with full powers) to 'trusted member allowed to do a few extra things' (that ordinary members aren't)

Having said that, my thoughts are:
1) The ability to send and receive/read '+owner' messages should be a moderator permission, granted by the owner as others, and with three options: (i) send and receive/read; (ii) receive/read only; and (iii) no access. (whether it can be done as one, or needs to be done as two, is a technical issue). 
2) Whether a moderator (permitted to receive/read such messages), receives them as e-mails, or is just able to read them on line should be a preference they can set, as with ordinary group messages: whether it can use the same preference setting(s) as ordinary messages, or should be its own setting, is something I'm ambivalent over.
3) There follows a group management issue (nothing to do with the technicalities/software/group.io service per se), that the owner should be clarifying his expectations to any moderator with this privilege - as to whether they should be pro-active and instantly responding, or not.

So I think I'm essentially with J_Catlady on this one.

Jeremy

--
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


--
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


Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:29 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I think it’s too bad that these are called +Owner messages (on either side of the coin) rather than something like +Admin messages, when sometimes mods who may not be owners can send and/or receive them. Perhaps this is a holdover from yahoo, having an owner email address. I would make a radical change and make it +Admin. I think this would eliminate a lot of confusion, no matter what is decided re permissions and delivery preferences.
 
 

 


My interpretation is that the +Owner feature was implemented as a preference with the purpose of implementing an "Admin" group where prospective or subscribed members could make inquiries to the group. Apparently, some users are trying to use this feature as being a "private" owner email address. I also agree that the wording on the group home page certainly adds to this confusion:. "Group Owner: ...+owner@...groups.io"

To me, suggesting that this feature be changed to a permission is not the way to go. For the purpose it appears to be implemented as now, I would suggest that that name could be changed to "+Admin" or "+Inquiries" or something like to help clear up misunderstandings.

If a private "Owner" group email address is really considered necessary, a new "OwnerOnly" address could be implemented. That address needn't (shouldn't) be a published feature at all, it could just be an address that only the Owner could send from with replies only going to that address. Of course, that still leaves the issue of what to do with multiple owners... 🙄 Perhaps they could be run-time generated addresses?

 
--
Gerald (FSO)


 

The “owner only” suggestion is taken care of by making it a general admin address and applying permissions accordingly. I would not over complicate this.


On Aug 15, 2019, at 7:06 AM, Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...> wrote:

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:29 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I think it’s too bad that these are called +Owner messages (on either side of the coin) rather than something like +Admin messages, when sometimes mods who may not be owners can send and/or receive them. Perhaps this is a holdover from yahoo, having an owner email address. I would make a radical change and make it +Admin. I think this would eliminate a lot of confusion, no matter what is decided re permissions and delivery preferences.
 
 

 


My interpretation is that the +Owner feature was implemented as a preference with the purpose of implementing an "Admin" group where prospective or subscribed members could make inquiries to the group. Apparently, some users are trying to use this feature as being a "private" owner email address. I also agree that the wording on the group home page certainly adds to this confusion:. "Group Owner: ...+owner@...groups.io"

To me, suggesting that this feature be changed to a permission is not the way to go. For the purpose it appears to be implemented as now, I would suggest that that name could be changed to "+Admin" or "+Inquiries" or something like to help clear up misunderstandings.

If a private "Owner" group email address is really considered necessary, a new "OwnerOnly" address could be implemented. That address needn't (shouldn't) be a published feature at all, it could just be an address that only the Owner could send from with replies only going to that address. Of course, that still leaves the issue of what to do with multiple owners... 🙄 Perhaps they could be run-time generated addresses?

 
--
Gerald (FSO)

--
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


Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:20 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
The “owner only” suggestion is taken care of by making it a general admin address and applying permissions accordingly. I would not overly complicate this.
I don't like changes that would require all groups that are using the +owner as a general catchall to have to make configuration and documentation changes. In other words, I would want to see backwards compatibility. Adding a new feature that doesn't break anything existing is less of an annoyance.
 
--
Gerald


 

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 09:19 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
I don't like changes that would require all groups that are using the +owner as a general catchall to have to make configuration and documentation changes.
I don't think they would have to. If you set up the defaults right, groups that want to make desired changes can do so.
 
--
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


 

p.s. Documentation changes are already needed anyway. People are generally very confused about who gets and can send +Owner messages currently.
--
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


Jeremy H
 

I would not disagree at to the desirability of separate +Owner and +Admin addresses, for the different functions that they imply: but because we are where we are, with +Owner being used when +admin would be a more accurate title for the intended recipient; groups.io's use of moderator privilege when 'trusted user' is what they mean (see discussion on control of calendar on GMF!), both need to be managed as previously indicated.

Jeremy


 

Re the proposed separate addresses: I feel doing that would greaten, not lessen, the need for documentation, and would actually lesson backward compatibility. If you just use +Admin, and set the default for the +Admin address to how +Owner functions now, groups need not even feel the change. The documentation could then specify how you can circumscribe or expand the functionality by use of specific permissions.
--
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


 

To add to the inconsistency and/or confusion: Last night I changed two moderators' subscription options (or email delivery options, whatever you choose to call them) so that they will receive all owner email, and log entries were created to the effect that I "changed their moderator permissions."

So bottom line, it is currently logged as a permission when changed by a group owner, but it *acts* like a subscription option becuase the moderators have the ability to change it themselves. Whatever is decided regarding the desired policy (permission or subscription option), this is currently a slight inconsistency in the system.
--
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


Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 01:38 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
To add to the inconsistency and/or confusion: Last night I changed two moderators' subscription options (or email delivery options, whatever you choose to call them) so that they will receive all owner email, and log entries were created to the effect that I "changed their moderator permissions."

So bottom line, it is currently logged as a permission when changed by a group owner, but it *acts* like a subscription option becuase the moderators have the ability to change it themselves. Whatever is decided regarding the desired policy (permission or subscription option), this is currently a slight inconsistency in the system.
--
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

Confusing it can be - no arguments there.

However, the way I look at it, there are two different bits of data that determine how the feature works.

One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.

--
Gerald


 

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:38 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.
No, it is an inconsistency. If something is a permission, I can't give it to myself. It must be given to me by someone higher up.

You would not call a variable that can be set by either the member or the owner (for example, a member's overall delivery preference) a "permission" just because someone higher than the member (a mod or owner) can set them.

This is just a slight inconsistency, but I think it does hint that during implementation, Mark had on one side of his mind the idea that this setting is actually a permission. Unfortunately, in another part of the implementation (the actual editing of the setting), it behaves as a preference rather than a permission.
 
--
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


Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:47 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:38 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.
No, it is an inconsistency. If something is a permission, I can't give it to myself. It must be given to me by someone higher up.

You would not call a variable that can be set by either the member or the owner (for example, a member's overall delivery preference) a "permission" just because someone higher than the member (a mod or owner) can set them.

This is just a slight inconsistency, but I think it does hint that during implementation, Mark had on one side of his mind the idea that this setting is actually a permission. Unfortunately, in another part of the implementation (the actual editing of the setting), it behaves as a preference rather than a permission.
 

 I thought we decided a while back that this was a bug, not an inconsistency.

eg) It should be working this way (but it isn't):

eg) Owner sets the permisison (P)
and the Moderator is given the option (O) to accept or not.

Result should be P "AND" O

In any case, it is what it is....

--
Gerald


 

You can call it a bug or an inconsistency. 😀


On Aug 30, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:47 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:38 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.
No, it is an inconsistency. If something is a permission, I can't give it to myself. It must be given to me by someone higher up.

You would not call a variable that can be set by either the member or the owner (for example, a member's overall delivery preference) a "permission" just because someone higher than the member (a mod or owner) can set them.

This is just a slight inconsistency, but I think it does hint that during implementation, Mark had on one side of his mind the idea that this setting is actually a permission. Unfortunately, in another part of the implementation (the actual editing of the setting), it behaves as a preference rather than a permission.
 

 I thought we decided a while back that this was a bug, not an inconsistency.

eg) It should be working this way (but it isn't):

eg) Owner sets the permisison (P)
and the Moderator is given the option (O) to accept or not.

Result should be P "AND" O

In any case, it is what it is....

--
Gerald

--
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


 

But a decision still needs to be made about whether mods can choose, on their own, to receive (and/or send) owner messages. I was just pointing out a minor inconsistency with the way things work right now, regardless of what is decided. The fix is easy: change the log entry.


On Aug 30, 2019, at 12:14 PM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

You can call it a bug or an inconsistency. 😀


On Aug 30, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:47 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:38 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....
Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of.
 
I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency.
No, it is an inconsistency. If something is a permission, I can't give it to myself. It must be given to me by someone higher up.

You would not call a variable that can be set by either the member or the owner (for example, a member's overall delivery preference) a "permission" just because someone higher than the member (a mod or owner) can set them.

This is just a slight inconsistency, but I think it does hint that during implementation, Mark had on one side of his mind the idea that this setting is actually a permission. Unfortunately, in another part of the implementation (the actual editing of the setting), it behaves as a preference rather than a permission.
 

 I thought we decided a while back that this was a bug, not an inconsistency.

eg) It should be working this way (but it isn't):

eg) Owner sets the permisison (P)
and the Moderator is given the option (O) to accept or not.

Result should be P "AND" O

In any case, it is what it is....

--
Gerald

--
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


--
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