locked Early 2016 Roadmap


 

Hi all,

I hope you all had a good New Year! While I did monitor beta@ during my vacation, it will take me a few days to go through and respond to the various threads from the past couple weeks. I appreciate your patience.

I've been thinking about what I'd like to get accomplished in the first part of this year. Here are my thoughts. Groups.io has been in quasi-beta status since launch (quasi because I haven't really made a big deal about it). I'd like to officially move out of beta status. To get there, I'd like to complete the following:

- Complete the database feature.
- Complete the long in-progress subdomains feature.
- Figure out what the Enterprise plan will be, if there is one.
- Work on some of the issues discussed over the past two weeks, including invite and join flows, and permissions.
- Bugfixes, of course.
- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.
- Figure out if there's anything I can or should be doing to funnel people to GroupManagersForum@ and similar groups, both to reduce traffic on beta@ and to keep its' scope more focused on development/improvement of the service.

Moving out of beta status will not have any real effect on the service. I will continue development in the same manner as now. Like all software development, there will still be bugs. It's more to say that we've been around over a year now, lots of people use the service, and things (generally :-) ) work.

Anyways, that's what I'm thinking. Let me know if you have questions or suggestions, especially about the last two bullet points.

Thanks,
Mark
(Here I'm using the @ sign after a word to designate a group name. Annoying? Useful? Meh?)


christopher hallsworth <challsworth2@...>
 

Nothing of the sort here, but what an awesome service it has been for me personally! It broke down a few times, but what do you expect? This is what I expect from this and any other service, whose experienced has been mixed for me, Emissives/Mailman being the worst possible both in terms of stability and support. Keep it up, and it would be awesome if it could come out of beta status in the not too distant future. It certainly didn't feel like a beta to me, and still doesn't. I think you should rename this group "development" or something of the sort. Looking forward to using Groups.io in 2016 and subsequent years.

On 4 Jan 2016, at 18:34, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi all,

I hope you all had a good New Year! While I did monitor beta@ during my vacation, it will take me a few days to go through and respond to the various threads from the past couple weeks. I appreciate your patience.

I've been thinking about what I'd like to get accomplished in the first part of this year. Here are my thoughts. Groups.io has been in quasi-beta status since launch (quasi because I haven't really made a big deal about it). I'd like to officially move out of beta status. To get there, I'd like to complete the following:

- Complete the database feature.
- Complete the long in-progress subdomains feature.
- Figure out what the Enterprise plan will be, if there is one.
- Work on some of the issues discussed over the past two weeks, including invite and join flows, and permissions.
- Bugfixes, of course.
- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.
- Figure out if there's anything I can or should be doing to funnel people to GroupManagersForum@ and similar groups, both to reduce traffic on beta@ and to keep its' scope more focused on development/improvement of the service.

Moving out of beta status will not have any real effect on the service. I will continue development in the same manner as now. Like all software development, there will still be bugs. It's more to say that we've been around over a year now, lots of people use the service, and things (generally :-) ) work.

Anyways, that's what I'm thinking. Let me know if you have questions or suggestions, especially about the last two bullet points.

Thanks,
Mark
(Here I'm using the @ sign after a word to designate a group name. Annoying? Useful? Meh?)


 

Agreed. I like the idea of officially coming out of beta. This way I can tell my group we're not moving to something that's not still 'in the testing phase' (whatever that means;).

One question: will the pricing structure change with this now, or will that be later? We're getting an ad-free experience now, which will be pleasant for group members (and a pleasant change from yahoo). When can we expect that to change on them? This may affect decisions (mine and other group owners') about if and when to upgrade. Thanks!
J

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 4, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Christopher Hallsworth <challsworth2@icloud.com> wrote:

Nothing of the sort here, but what an awesome service it has been for me personally! It broke down a few times, but what do you expect? This is what I expect from this and any other service, whose experienced has been mixed for me, Emissives/Mailman being the worst possible both in terms of stability and support. Keep it up, and it would be awesome if it could come out of beta status in the not too distant future. It certainly didn't feel like a beta to me, and still doesn't. I think you should rename this group "development" or something of the sort. Looking forward to using Groups.io in 2016 and subsequent years.
On 4 Jan 2016, at 18:34, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi all,

I hope you all had a good New Year! While I did monitor beta@ during my vacation, it will take me a few days to go through and respond to the various threads from the past couple weeks. I appreciate your patience.

I've been thinking about what I'd like to get accomplished in the first part of this year. Here are my thoughts. Groups.io has been in quasi-beta status since launch (quasi because I haven't really made a big deal about it). I'd like to officially move out of beta status. To get there, I'd like to complete the following:

- Complete the database feature.
- Complete the long in-progress subdomains feature.
- Figure out what the Enterprise plan will be, if there is one.
- Work on some of the issues discussed over the past two weeks, including invite and join flows, and permissions.
- Bugfixes, of course.
- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.
- Figure out if there's anything I can or should be doing to funnel people to GroupManagersForum@ and similar groups, both to reduce traffic on beta@ and to keep its' scope more focused on development/improvement of the service.

Moving out of beta status will not have any real effect on the service. I will continue development in the same manner as now. Like all software development, there will still be bugs. It's more to say that we've been around over a year now, lots of people use the service, and things (generally :-) ) work.

Anyways, that's what I'm thinking. Let me know if you have questions or suggestions, especially about the last two bullet points.

Thanks,
Mark
(Here I'm using the @ sign after a word to designate a group name. Annoying? Useful? Meh?)



Steph <hsrsp@...>
 

How about keeping this one as beta@ and have a sub group called GroupManagers@

Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 12:34 PM
Subject: [beta] Early 2016 Roadmap

Hi all,

I hope you all had a good New Year! While I did monitor beta@ during my vacation, it will take me a few days to go through and respond to the various threads from the past couple weeks. I appreciate your patience.

I've been thinking about what I'd like to get accomplished in the first part of this year. Here are my thoughts. Groups.io has been in quasi-beta status since launch (quasi because I haven't really made a big deal about it). I'd like to officially move out of beta status. To get there, I'd like to complete the following:

- Complete the database feature.
- Complete the long in-progress subdomains feature.
- Figure out what the Enterprise plan will be, if there is one.
- Work on some of the issues discussed over the past two weeks, including invite and join flows, and permissions.
- Bugfixes, of course.
- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.
- Figure out if there's anything I can or should be doing to funnel people to GroupManagersForum@ and similar groups, both to reduce traffic on beta@ and to keep its' scope more focused on development/improvement of the service.

Moving out of beta status will not have any real effect on the service. I will continue development in the same manner as now. Like all software development, there will still be bugs. It's more to say that we've been around over a year now, lots of people use the service, and things (generally :-) ) work.

Anyways, that's what I'm thinking. Let me know if you have questions or suggestions, especially about the last two bullet points.

Thanks,
Mark
(Here I'm using the @ sign after a word to designate a group name. Annoying? Useful? Meh?)


 

Will GMF continue to be moderated? I prefer beta for that reason.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 4, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Steph <hsrsp@...> wrote:

How about keeping this one as beta@ and have a sub group called GroupManagers@

Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 12:34 PM
Subject: [beta] Early 2016 Roadmap

Hi all,

I hope you all had a good New Year! While I did monitor beta@ during my vacation, it will take me a few days to go through and respond to the various threads from the past couple weeks. I appreciate your patience.

I've been thinking about what I'd like to get accomplished in the first part of this year. Here are my thoughts. Groups.io has been in quasi-beta status since launch (quasi because I haven't really made a big deal about it). I'd like to officially move out of beta status. To get there, I'd like to complete the following:

- Complete the database feature.
- Complete the long in-progress subdomains feature.
- Figure out what the Enterprise plan will be, if there is one.
- Work on some of the issues discussed over the past two weeks, including invite and join flows, and permissions.
- Bugfixes, of course.
- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.
- Figure out if there's anything I can or should be doing to funnel people to GroupManagersForum@ and similar groups, both to reduce traffic on beta@ and to keep its' scope more focused on development/improvement of the service.

Moving out of beta status will not have any real effect on the service. I will continue development in the same manner as now. Like all software development, there will still be bugs. It's more to say that we've been around over a year now, lots of people use the service, and things (generally :-) ) work.

Anyways, that's what I'm thinking. Let me know if you have questions or suggestions, especially about the last two bullet points.

Thanks,
Mark
(Here I'm using the @ sign after a word to designate a group name. Annoying? Useful? Meh?)


Rajmund <brajmund2000@...>
 

Hello Mark,
I like the idea of the beta group, in my opinion, it should remain. Allows listers to gain ideas, to give feedback, and in a way, to help you out. ?Anks  a great, and reliable group host!



Sent from an iPad

On 4 Jan 2016, at 6:34 pm, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi all,

I hope you all had a good New Year! While I did monitor beta@ during my vacation, it will take me a few days to go through and respond to the various threads from the past couple weeks. I appreciate your patience.

I've been thinking about what I'd like to get accomplished in the first part of this year. Here are my thoughts. Groups.io has been in quasi-beta status since launch (quasi because I haven't really made a big deal about it). I'd like to officially move out of beta status. To get there, I'd like to complete the following:

- Complete the database feature.
- Complete the long in-progress subdomains feature.
- Figure out what the Enterprise plan will be, if there is one.
- Work on some of the issues discussed over the past two weeks, including invite and join flows, and permissions.
- Bugfixes, of course.
- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.
- Figure out if there's anything I can or should be doing to funnel people to GroupManagersForum@ and similar groups, both to reduce traffic on beta@ and to keep its' scope more focused on development/improvement of the service.

Moving out of beta status will not have any real effect on the service. I will continue development in the same manner as now. Like all software development, there will still be bugs. It's more to say that we've been around over a year now, lots of people use the service, and things (generally :-) ) work.

Anyways, that's what I'm thinking. Let me know if you have questions or suggestions, especially about the last two bullet points.

Thanks,
Mark
(Here I'm using the @ sign after a word to designate a group name. Annoying? Useful? Meh?)


vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

Hi Mark,

Welcome back.
Hope your vacation was memorable. Happy New Year to you also.

In my opinion I feel Moderators should be funneled to managers group. io   with 
  help questions about groups . 

While the beta group should be about  group  improvements and  development request.

And your email should be about just that Developer@....

Talk is a lot of Yahoo groups are looking into  creating groups with  group .io  especially
with the  news  that Yahoo is looking to sell  the core of their business  or possibly the
internet business. 
Which means these moderators will need a place to ask  questions on how  to manage
their groups..   I feel   newbie moderators and  expert moderators  should be redirected to Shal with  group administrative/  manager questions.

Thanks for reading my suggestion


Vickie

 









From: Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2016 1:34 PM
Subject: [beta] Early 2016 Roadmap

Hi all,

I hope you all had a good New Year! While I did monitor beta@ during my vacation, it will take me a few days to go through and respond to the various threads from the past couple weeks. I appreciate your patience.

I've been thinking about what I'd like to get accomplished in the first part of this year. Here are my thoughts. Groups.io has been in quasi-beta status since launch (quasi because I haven't really made a big deal about it). I'd like to officially move out of beta status. To get there, I'd like to complete the following:

- Complete the database feature.
- Complete the long in-progress subdomains feature.
- Figure out what the Enterprise plan will be, if there is one.
- Work on some of the issues discussed over the past two weeks, including invite and join flows, and permissions.
- Bugfixes, of course.
- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.
- Figure out if there's anything I can or should be doing to funnel people to GroupManagersForum@ and similar groups, both to reduce traffic on beta@ and to keep its' scope more focused on development/improvement of the service.

Moving out of beta status will not have any real effect on the service. I will continue development in the same manner as now. Like all software development, there will still be bugs. It's more to say that we've been around over a year now, lots of people use the service, and things (generally :-) ) work.

Anyways, that's what I'm thinking. Let me know if you have questions or suggestions, especially about the last two bullet points.

Thanks,
Mark
(Here I'm using the @ sign after a word to designate a group name. Annoying? Useful? Meh?)




 

On 4 Jan 2016 at 10:34, Mark Fletcher wrote:

- Complete the database feature.
- Complete the long in-progress subdomains feature.
- Figure out what the Enterprise plan will be, if there is one.
These are the top issues for me also. I would like to have other premium
options other than $10/mo, maybe a la carte - like extra storage,
integrations, skins, no ads? I would also like to pay something to support
groups.io just for using the basic service, but not $120/yr.


- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.
Yeah, I guess beta@ should be renamed. Something short, like dev@?
Something to reflect the group purpose of development of the service.


- Figure out if there's anything I can or should be doing to funnel
people to GroupManagersForum@ and similar groups
Can you put a link to the groups in the Help Center?


(Here I'm using the @ sign after a word to designate a group name.
I like it. Beats the alternative of adding "groups.io" after every group
address.


--
Jim
Poston@vch-nv.us

<< GUI:A set of pretty pictures to entertain the illiterate. >>


Duane
 

- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.

I think that to some extent, this group is still for beta items - suggestions, changes, feedback - although I wouldn't be against a name change as suggested to dev@ or similar.

- Figure out if there's anything I can or should be doing to funnel people to GroupManagersForum@ and similar groups, both to reduce traffic on beta@ and to keep its' scope more focused on development/improvement of the service.

I'd like to see more folks use the GMF@ for "normal" questions and reserve this one more for feedback, concerns, and discussion of new features.

I know it's the least favorite part of any developers work, but until there's better documentation, I suspect there will be questions about "simple" things that already exist or are planned. Especially when they work a bit differently than Yahoo and are in a state of flux. Those should really be addressed at GMF@ or similar. I believe that Shal is moderating GMF@ by himself, so if traffic picks up, he may add a moderator or two.

I hope you (Mark) got to enjoy your time off - now back to the salt mines! ;>)

Duane


 

Mark,

- Work on some of the issues discussed over the past two weeks,
including invite and join flows, and permissions.
;-)

- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.
As disruptive as it is to rename a group, yes you should probably rename this one and/or create new ones going forward.

A good name should be consistent with its purpose. For that reason I wouldn't suggest support@ (which is sort-of taken anyway) nor dev@ nor dev-team@. Years ago Flickr had the "ideas" forum, which later became the "Flickr Ideas" group and ultimately moved over to UserVoice by way of a link named "Feedback". So I kind of like ideas@ or feedback@ as consistent with the user-driven development/improvement focus.

- Figure out if there's anything I can or should be doing to funnel
people to GroupManagersForum@ and similar groups, both to reduce traffic
on beta@ and to keep its' scope more focused on development/improvement
of the service.
Why thank you.[1] ;-) When I set up GMF I anticipated that it wouldn't have much of a role to play so long as Groups.io remained in beta; with beta@ being the primary focus for everyone learning how to use Groups.io.

A similar group is Group_Help@ - whose mission includes help for all users: members, moderators and owners.

As Jim said, there could be a place in the help system for a "short list" of recommended user-to-user and/or moderator-to-moderator groups. Yahoo used to have such a list shown prominently in its help pages. Oh it is still there, but no longer so prominent and now hidden under an "Additional Resources" expander:
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/groups/sln2570.html

And of course, the future beta@ group(s) could cite them.

(Here I'm using the @ sign after a word to designate a group name.
Annoying? Useful? Meh?)
I'll second Jim again, I like having a short-hand way to signify a group name. This seems a good choice, as it calls to mind the posting address of the named group. It subtly reinforces the email mission focus of groups.io.


-- Shal
1: Owner of https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum
Moderator of https://groups.io/g/Group_Help


Frances
 

Hi Mark,

I think you should rename Beta since it implies it is not yet ready.

Perhaps something like Usability.

Frances

On Jan 4 16, at 10:34 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.



David P. Dillard
 

I am curious about the need to change the name. Would it better serve to have a current bried statement of the purpose of the group as it is now used right after the name? That should convey far more information than a short name and could painlessly be changed of further modifications in what this group does should occur. Since the list is for moderators and owners, what the list is doing should be clear to those of us who use it anyway and new members can get explanations through a FAQ that is linked in all posts to the list that could be created to tell in detail what the list is and is not for. I think that documentation and explanation if far better than changing from one very short name to another.



Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@temple.edu

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Frances wrote:

Hi Mark,
I think you should rename Beta since it implies it is not yet ready.
Perhaps something like Usability.
Frances
On Jan 4 16, at 10:34 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.


Green Fizzpops
 

Hi Mark

I hope you had a good vacation :)

I do agree with Duane about the need for better documentation. When the only answer I can give to my team of mods when they ask how to do something is "go search the beta archives, maybe it will be explained there", documentation is definitely an issue. :(

Regards
Green


On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
- Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.

I think that to some extent, this group is still for beta items - suggestions, changes, feedback - although I wouldn't be against a name change as suggested to dev@ or similar.

- Figure out if there's anything I can or should be doing to funnel people to GroupManagersForum@ and similar groups, both to reduce traffic on beta@ and to keep its' scope more focused on development/improvement of the service.

I'd like to see more folks use the GMF@ for "normal" questions and reserve this one more for feedback, concerns, and discussion of new features.

I know it's the least favorite part of any developers work, but until there's better documentation, I suspect there will be questions about "simple" things that already exist or are planned.  Especially when they work a bit differently than Yahoo and are in a state of flux.  Those should really be addressed at GMF@ or similar.  I believe that Shal is moderating GMF@ by himself, so if traffic picks up, he may add a moderator or two.

I hope you (Mark) got to enjoy your time off - now back to the salt mines! ;>)

Duane







ro-esp
 

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:43 pm, vickie <vickie_00@yahoo.com> wrote:

In my opinion I feel Moderators should be funneled to managers group. io  
with   help questions about groups . 

While the beta group should be about  group  improvements and  development
request.
I agree (just don't see a place to thumb it up yet...). It makes sense to have one group to help moderators and another to discuss possible new features etc. I don't think the first should have the same name as one existing on yahoogroups.

groetjes, Ronaldo


vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

 groetjes, Ronaldo....>>I agree (just don't see a place to thumb it up yet...)


Shal's gmf io group covers a lot of areas of group management.  
This is especially helpful  for newbie moderators needing help from experienced moderators.

Then there is group help . A place  you can turn to  if you experience  the  challenges,  problems running groups.
It can also be about bugs or errors  moderators experience and if they are not able to find the answer
to problems  present then  they can take it to Mark in the event there is a need for a  bug /code fix.. 


I feel the beta group should be about what new features, improvements   can be added to groups.

I am looking ahead

As groups start to grow in Marks io website the more the beta group questions, problems or request will grow.


I respect the work Mark does.. He is sits in my good list of decent hard working people.
 I feel bad Mark has to deal with so  much incoming mail in the beta group  on   questions that should  be  asked in 
Shals group or the help group.

Just saying.


Vickie










 
 


From: ro-esp <ro-esp@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 6:06 PM
Subject: [beta] Re: Early 2016 Roadmap

On Mon, Jan  4, 2016 at 12:43 pm, vickie <vickie_00@...> wrote:

> In my opinion I feel Moderators should be funneled to managers group. io  
> with   help questions about groups . 
>
> While the beta group should be about  group  improvements and  development
> request.

I agree (just don't see a place to thumb it up yet...). It makes sense to have one group to help moderators and another to discuss possible new features etc. I don't think the first should have the same name as one existing on yahoogroups.

                                                              groetjes, Ronaldo







Nightowl >8#
 

Mark Fletcher wrote:>>Decide whether beta@ should be renamed, and if so, to what.<<

Over at Yahoo, when our group stopped being just a Crusade against Yahoo, we renamed it the Yahoo Think tank.

Maybe the Think Tank title or something similar might work for renaming Beta. Maybe the ioThink Tank? or groupsio Think Tank? Or maybe something like the Groups.io Workshop? Or even the Groups.io Feedback?

Just some suggestions.

Brenda