Topics

Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done

Bruce Bowman
 

I suggest that the existing "Set Moderator Privileges" flag should not allow a Moderator to edit the Role field. Promoting/demoting people to/from Moderator or Owner strikes me as an Owner function.

Thanks for your consideration.

Bruce

 

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:03 PM Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
I suggest that the existing "Set Moderator Privileges" flag should not allow a Moderator to edit the Role field. Promoting/demoting people to/from Moderator or Owner strikes me as an Owner function.

This makes sense. Any objections?

Thanks,
Mark 

Gilbert Coville
 

On Feb 10, 2020, at 12:09 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:03 PM Bruce Bowman <@BruceBowman> wrote:
I suggest that the existing "Set Moderator Privileges" flag should not allow a Moderator to edit the Role field. Promoting/demoting people to/from Moderator or Owner strikes me as an Owner function.
This makes sense. Any objections?

Thanks,
Mark
Would it be possible to have a separate Moderator permission for “Set Role (including the ability to promote a moderator to owner)”? This way the ability would be retained, but be more explicit.

Gilbert

 

I have a moderator with all privileges. I don't want to make her an owner. But if I'm hit with a bus, I want her to be able to make new moderators with all privileges, and so on.

Chris Jones
 

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 08:09 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
This makes sense. Any objections?
Only a fairly minor one; AIUI the main problem is that moderators with set moderator permissions can promote themselves to owners and demote the real owners. That is clearly wrong. At the same time I can see that on occasions it might be helpful if a moderator can appoint another one or edit another moderator's permissions, perhaps to cover an unforseen event that left a group short of moderation effort.

But it's not a show - stopper concern.

Chris

 

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 02:39 PM, Lena wrote:
I have a moderator with all privileges. I don't want to make her an owner. But if I'm hit with a bus, I want her to be able to make new moderators with all privileges, and so on.
I have the exact same issue. 
--
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

 

I think that a moderator “with privileges” should be able to promote ( or perhaps also demote) other members and mods. Just not be able to demote an owner and probably not be able to make themselves or others owners. But having  the ability to add additional moderators when needed is an important function of a mod who may be primary group manager and/or acting as an owner “backup”. Yahoo did get one thing right imo, in allowing a setting where “ full privileged mods” can do everything but delete the group and remove the current owner. In other words please preserve the ability for mods to appoint new mods, ie “change role “ of members when needed. Linda N

 

Mark,

I suggest that the existing "Set Moderator Privileges" flag should
not allow a Moderator to edit the Role field.

This makes sense. Any objections?
I concur with Lena, Chris, J, and Linda: that permission should extend to promoting members and demoting mods, but it should not permit any changes to/from the Owner role.

Nor should it (or any other moderator permission) allow a moderator to change an Owner's subscription settings (or should I say membership settings).

Shal

 

Mark -
I concur with Shal's comments. I would like to have a moderator that can approve members, and if necessary, promote others to moderators. However I have seen such a situation where a person has abused authority given them, and so am hesitant to risk having a moderator that might try to remove an owner and put themselves in that place.

Dano

----- Original Message -----

Mark,

I concur with Lena, Chris, J, and Linda: that permission should extend
to promoting members and demoting mods, but it should not permit any
changes to/from the Owner role.

Nor should it (or any other moderator permission) allow a moderator to
change an Owner's subscription settings (or should I say membership
settings).

Shal

Bärbel Stephenson
 

No :)

On 02/10/20 20:09, Mark Fletcher wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:03 PM Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
I suggest that the existing "Set Moderator Privileges" flag should not allow a Moderator to edit the Role field. Promoting/demoting people to/from Moderator or Owner strikes me as an Owner function.

This makes sense. Any objections?

Thanks,
Mark 

Janis
 

I am 100% in favor of Bruce's suggestion.  
If an owner is worried about sudden unexpected death, tgey can choose a few moderators and privileges of each and the group can still function.  The only orivileges moderators need are approving messages and,  if you wish, approving membership requests and/or inviting new members if you wish the group to have new members after you are gone.   If you have the group set up to function without you, then moderators do not need any special privileges.

Moderators should never be able to mess with owner status or functions.  

West Coast Compañeros Staff
 

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:09 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I suggest that the existing "Set Moderator Privileges" flag should not allow a Moderator to edit the Role field. Promoting/demoting people to/from Moderator or Owner strikes me as an Owner function.
Bruce's suggestion neatly takes care of the first of three related issues that have been, and continue to be, discussed at great length in the GMF group. As such, I strongly support Bruce's suggestion.

(The first issue is protecting groups from rogue Moderators who would usurp the functions of the Owner(s). The second issue is protecting the "real Owner" from rogue co-Owners who would depose and remove her/him, or even delete the group. The third issue is ensuring group continuity by a succession mechanism for transferring group ownership when the last existing owner is deceased, disabled, or missing in action.)

I don't want to hijack Bruce's thread, so I will start a new topic where we can work on the second issue. The third issue is the trickiest and messiest, but any comprehensive solution will need to deal with it.

Robert R.

Michael Pavan
 

Good proposal.

However this does not prevent a Moderator with "Remove Members (also allows access to the member list)" privileges from removing an Owner.

Duane
 

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 07:09 PM, Michael Pavan wrote:
However this does not prevent a Moderator with "Remove Members (also allows access to the member list)" privileges from removing an Owner.
It should if there is no other owner.  I believe Mark has it set up so that the last owner cannot be removed, nor remove themselves.

Duane

Michael Pavan
 

Duane,

On Feb 11, 2020, at 8:42 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 07:09 PM, Michael Pavan wrote:
However this does not prevent a Moderator with "Remove Members (also allows access to the member list)" privileges from removing an Owner.
It should if there is no other owner. I believe Mark has it set up so that the last owner cannot be removed, nor remove themselves.
If there is more than one Owner, a Moderator can remove other Owner(s).
Some Owners may wish to have more than one Owner...

Michael

 

Michael wrote:

If there is more than one Owner, a Moderator can remove other
Owner(s). Some Owners may wish to have more than one Owner...
I'll amend my prior message to add concurrence with what I believe is Michael's point: a moderator should not be able to remove an owner regardless of the moderator's permissions or the number of owners.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/24151

Otherwise the risk is that a moderator might effectively decapitate a group by removing all the active owners, leaving only an inactive or incapacitated one.

Shal

ro-esp
 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:27 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

I'll amend my prior message to add concurrence with what I believe is
Michael's point: a moderator should not be able to remove an owner
regardless of the moderator's permissions or the number of owners.
I think there's a lot of consensus here, but not quite the right wording yet. Let me give it a shot: someone with the title of *moderator* should not be able to demote or remove someone with the title of *owner*. Even a co-owner/vice-owner should not be able to singlehandedly demote an owner. Someone with the title "moderator" should not be able to singlehandedly promote someone else to owner. IMHO a moderator should have the power to appoint a successor.

I'm not going into any unpleasantness that could arise due to people changing group settings here for now.

groetjes, Ronaldo

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:25 PM, ro-esp wrote:
IMHO a moderator should have the power to appoint a successor.
Well yes, and, er, no. If it is necessary to appoint a successor then that ought really to be a collaborative decision taken by all the managers of a group, not just the person who is standing down. After all a successor is a replacement, not simply an additional moderator.

However I can envisage circumstances where an additional moderator might be required to cover a sudden gap in moderation coverage, and in that case it might well be acceptable for a single moderator to appoint someone to the role, possibly (probably?) with limited permissions.; even then a concensus decision would be preferable.

I struggle to think of any way in which Mark could provide a software solution to cater for both sets of circumstances.

In many ways the best solution is the application of good manners, good practice, and good faith, but sadly the implication underlying the current "Requirement" is that all three are, in some groups, lacking. :(

Chris

 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:43 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:25 PM, ro-esp wrote:
IMHO a moderator should have the power to appoint a successor.
Well yes, and, er, no. If it is necessary to appoint a successor then that ought really to be a collaborative decision taken by all the managers of a group, not just the person who is standing down.

If you substitute the word "owner" in the ro-esp message, which is what I think(?) was meant there, then I agree with that. An owner *should* have the power to uniquely appoint a successor. This is *not* and should never be a "collaborative decision." And even if the original post meant "moderator," I also think it's not a collaborative decision; it is, again, and I think should be, the unique decision of the owner. 
--
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

 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:50 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
An owner *should* have the power to uniquely appoint a successor.
Of course, I am talking about if chosen before the owner gets hit by a bus. If the owner is gone and a successor must be chosen, then all bets are off.
 
--
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