Topics

moderated Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion #done


Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 04:50 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
If you substitute the word "owner" in the ro-esp message, which is what I think(?) was meant there,
My comments were based on what was written, not what might have been meant. If it meant owner rather than moderator then I think I agree with you. :)

Chris


 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:57 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
If it meant owner rather than moderator then I think I agree with you. :)
I think there might be a lot of conflation of terms in this thread. Not sure. But I can say that it's confusing enough even without that happening. ;)
 
--
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


Dave Sergeant
 

When I set up one of my groups I deliberately made both moderators
owners. This has now come in useful as the original owner is now in a
care home, quite unwell and unable to moderate. I also ensure that all
moderators have priveleges to upgrade members to moderators (something
that nearly stopped me sorting out a Yahoogroups transfer a few years
ago).

Dave

On 12 Feb 2020 at 8:54, J_Catlady wrote:

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.

http://davesergeant.com


 

Ronaldo,

My only concern is with this:

Even a co-owner/vice-owner should not be able to singlehandedly demote an owner.

I'm not yet convinced that there's a benefit to having separate classes of owner (original/founder versus other) that outweighs the complexity/confusion that it may cause.

I would say that if an owner doesn't trust someone well enough to make them a co-equal owner then they should make that person a fully-permissioned moderator instead. That of course presumes that the primary change of this topic has been made to prevent such a moderator from making any changes to any owners' role or subscription.

IMHO a moderator should have the power to appoint a successor.

I believe that the ability of a moderator to appoint a successor moderator should be controlled by the permission to Set Moderator Privileges. That would allow the moderator to change a member's role to moderator and set that new moderator's permissions.

Shal


ro-esp
 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:50 PM, J_Catlady 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
No, that's not what I meant. If someone with the title of moderator is doing all the work, but has to go away for a while, (s)he needs to be able to promote someone to *moderator*. If the *owner* is missing, appointing a new one requires intervention by support@groups.io , and I don't want any time-pressure on that.

As to "collaborative decision taken by all the managers"... no, I don't necessarily agree with that. I think the GROUP can have a vote on it if it disagrees with a decision of a moderator/owner.

An owner *should* have the power to uniquely appoint a successor.
Yes, of course an owner should be able to bestow the title of (co- / vice-) owner upon somebody. Most of the discussion is about who has the right to TAKE IT AWAY.

Maybe nobody except the owner him/herself should have the right to demote an owner (crazy stuff I haven found the word for excluded)


groetjes/ĝis, Ronaldo


 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:10 PM, ro-esp wrote:
(crazy stuff I haven found the word for excluded)
Oh, right! Haha.
 
--
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


West Coast Compañeros Staff
 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:27 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm not yet convinced that there's a benefit to having separate classes of owner (original/founder versus other) that outweighs the complexity/confusion that it may cause.
 
I would say that if an owner doesn't trust someone well enough to make them a co-equal owner then they should make that person a fully-permissioned moderator instead. That of course presumes that the primary change of this topic has been made to prevent such a moderator from making any changes to any owners' role or subscription.
 
Shal,

My intention in proposing a Primary Owner (Powner?) was really to bring Mark's attention to the large volume of discussion that has been taking pace on GMF, on the related issues of 1) protecting original owners from being demoted or removed (potentially leading to groups being hijacked or deleted), and 2) avoiding the orphaning of groups.

In my own case, I would never establish moderators or co-owners whom I didn't trust implicitly, but the extensive discussion about rogue owners on GMF deserves some attention here in beta. Bruce's excellent suggestion about refining moderators' permissions is one piece of the puzzle, but I thought it would be helpful to throw some of the other puzzle pieces onto the table in hopes of forming a coherent set of solutions.

I got carried away and tried to propose a complicated solution instead of just launching a couple of new topics to consider the main interrelated issues. To simplify: a sole owner would automatically be identified as the primary owner. In groups with multiple owners, the other owners can, if they wish, "promote" someone to primary owner by voluntarily demoting themselves (temporarily). The sole remaining owner then automatically becomes the primary owner and reinstates the co-owners. The primary owner would be immune from demotion or removal by other owners, and would be the only one empowered to delete a group.

Robert R.


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


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.

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


txercoupemuseum.org
 

Ronaldo, et al... 

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

— 

On Feb 15, 2020, at 4:10 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.

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
_._,_._,_


Duane
 

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


Charles Roberts
 

I would appreciate if someone could explain the rationale to me that would make it reasonable for any Moderator to be able to demote any Owner, (or any Moderator senior to them).

Chuck



On Feb 15, 2020 8:06 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
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


txercoupemuseum.org
 


On GMF under the topic "Membership Metrics there was an exchange between a contributor and a  moderator.  Following that exchange, the contributor posted:

"And very silly of me to think that things might have improved in three months and "I" not notified.
The moderator responded:  
"If something is wrong that can have serious effects, it's usually fixed within a matter of hours once It's been reported.  Feature suggestions, once posted on beta, get added to the pile and may or may not be implemented.  There was a feature added a couple of months ago that I requested in late 2015, so no need to get impatient.  The best way, I think, to keep up with things is to read the #Changelog on this group when it's posted.  Even better is to follow the beta group, but I know that not everyone will do that."

In my opinion some moderators are less than properly receptive to change.  I don’t agree, so 
I attempted to post this response to the above:

"I cannot envision “serious effects” greater than a moderator “permissions” that allows a moderator to demote or eliminate a group’s owner.  This has long been under discussion.  Reasonable consensus has been reached that this should be changed so as to be impossible.  All argument against is based on “what if”, or “it’s been that way for so long, what’s YOUR problem.  

I sometime wonder if all of us are speaking the same language.  When an important “fix” is apparently “lost in the pile” a way to “bump” consideration and invoke higher priority would seem appropriate.  Any suggestion(s) as to what to do when there IS just cause to get impatient?

WRB”

My “…message was not approved” for the  following reason:  

"While I agree that having that moderator permission allow any effect on owners is a bad thing, it is not in the same order of magnitude as something that blocks message delivery or otherwise impairs ongoing operation of the site.

There are enough topics discussing the Moderator permissions issue, we don't need to bring that discussion into this topic.”

OK, fine.  I’ll bring this matter HERE for discussion.  I believe it inappropriate that ANY moderator presume to unilaterally interfere with legitimate discussion on any “issue”.  Whether we discuss it HERE or THERE, there MUST be an acceptable place and way for such discussion.  

The subject above is the issue:  "Protecting the original Owner from rogue co-Owners #suggestion”.  Maybe this subject should have been submitted as a “Bug".  It certainly isn't a “Feature”.

It should be obvious that certain existing moderators presently enjoy the power to demote or remove an existing or rightful owner SOLELY because Groups.io checkbox descriptions were unclear as to disclose the full range of actions thus “authorized”.   These checkboxes are part of the initial process of setting up a group here.  It’s just plain wrong not to timely disclose what is being thus authorized.
  
The result is an ongoing unnecessary and undesired threat to the internal harmony and even continued existence of each such group.  It should be self-evident that ending this problem of long standing should receive support, not resistance; and higher priority from within Groups.io.  After all, this problem was NOT created by those owners, but by Groups.io.

Opinions?  Poll?

WRB

— 



ro-esp
 

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:10 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:


There have been numerous opinions
yes

None of them (= moderator) privileges mention “also can demote existing owner”.

I cannot conceive WHY this time-bomb, which now is common knowledge and
undisputed. has not been defused.
Probably because it requires a shedload of programming, and/or Mark hasn't gotten around to it.

Either THAT option should be deleted
No, it needs to be REFINED. We seem to all agree that a *moderator* needs to be able to appoint another *moderator*, but should not be able to *demote* an *owner*. The problem is that both fall under the same privilege now

the power for a moderator to demote an existing owner should be removed
yes

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.
Whether a (co-)owner should have the power to demote a (senior) owner is a different matter.
My opinion is that (s)he shouldn't have that, and I'm on the fence on whether a moderator should be able to demote another moderator

A moderator with all other owner powers can keep a group functional indefinitely.
If (s)he can appoint another member to moderator and give him/her the necessary privileges, yes

groetjes, Ronaldo


txercoupemuseum.org
 

Comments below in “< >”.

Best!

WRB



On Feb 16, 2020, at 10:19 AM, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:10 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:


There have been numerous opinions
yes

None of them (= moderator) privileges mention “also can demote existing owner”.

I cannot conceive WHY this time-bomb, which now is common knowledge and
undisputed. has not been defused.
Probably because it requires a shedload of programming, and/or Mark hasn't gotten around to it.
<Whether this sentence is started with the word “probably” or “possibly”, it is personal speculation which does not serve to move the discussion further toward resolution. It presumes Mark does not prioritize suggestions in terms of those he deems most urgent.

I think Mark is very aware that there are “back burner ideas” and “more urgent problems” in his “suggestions” pile. Our discussions here on [beta] seem to be OUR only current way to help him perceive that resolution of THIS problem (of monitor-owner demotion or removal) is a “more urgent” one.>

Either THAT option should be deleted
No, it needs to be REFINED.
<No. Presently the description next to the selection box does not properly and fully disclose and warn that this selection allows a moderator so empowered to demote or throw out an existing owner. You agree below that a “moderator should not be able to ‘demote' an owner*.

“Refining” this option such that there is full and proper disclosure merely informs an owner of the danger implicit in checking that box. It does nothing to eliminate that danger. I think this checkbox option needs to be deleted or disabled immediately.

Then, as time permits, an option to allow those related privileges as are NOT disruptive could be added back as deemed necessary or beneficial. This more complicated task should be of lower priority.>

We seem to all agree that a *moderator* needs to be able to appoint another *moderator*, but should not be able to *demote* an *owner*. The problem is that both fall under the same privilege now
<I respectfully disagree that there is any consensus whatsoever “...that a *moderator* needs to be able to appoint another *moderator*.>

the power for a moderator to demote an existing owner should be removed
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.
Whether a (co-)owner should have the power to demote a (senior) owner is a different matter.
<Please. “…(senior) owners don’t yet exist.>

My opinion is that (s)he shouldn't have that
<Once more we’re diverted down a rat hole of speculation because we don’t yet have “…(senior) owners.>

, and I'm on the fence on whether a moderator should be able to demote another moderator
<I think this privilege should be reserved to the owner (or perhaps a “sub-owner” if we create such)>

A moderator with all other owner powers can keep a group functional indefinitely.
If (s)he can appoint another member to moderator and give him/her the necessary privileges, yes
<One size does not fit all. Groups with restricted membership have a much higher monitor work load in day-to-day function than those (like mine) who let anyone join. I neither need nor allow moderators to appoint moderators. That needs to be reserved to “upper management” function. How “lower management, i.e moderators with greater or lesser powers, do things is each group’s obligation to work out for themselves.>

groetjes, Ronaldo


Charles Roberts
 


What WRB said, 2x........
 
My Opinion:
The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go to seek help.  At least that's my understanding.  Too often, an OP receives a chastation for not crossing their "I's" or dotting their "T's".....or for saying something a "Moderator" doesn't like.  Supposed to be Owners helping Owners, but rarely is a question answered by someone other than a "Moderator".  I was a Helper Responder in an old Excel Newsgroup and I know how difficult it is for Non-teckies to ask questions, let alone understand the answers given by Super-Teckies......but it's the Super-Teckie Helper Responder's obligation to make the effort to TRY to communicate, and in no way should the OP go away feeling embarrased for asking.....(even if they ask the same dumb question more than once).  Many times, in both beta and GMF,  I've personally had to delete an entire "fireback" message I'd typed in answer to some unthoughtful response...... 
 
As suggested by WRB, POLLS, (with good questions), might be a good answer for suggestions/improvements/fixes....I love data over arguments.
 
This is where Chuck gets down off his Soap-Box now and partakes of additional medication.
My best to all
Chuck
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 12:57 AM
Subject: [beta] Restrict "Set Moderator Privileges" Permission #suggestion


On GMF under the topic "Membership Metrics there was an exchange between a contributor and a  moderator.  Following that exchange, the contributor posted:
"And very silly of me to think that things might have improved in three months and "I" not notified.
The moderator responded:  
"If something is wrong that can have serious effects, it's usually fixed within a matter of hours once It's been reported.  Feature suggestions, once posted on beta, get added to the pile and may or may not be implemented.  There was a feature added a couple of months ago that I requested in late 2015, so no need to get impatient.  The best way, I think, to keep up with things is to read the #Changelog on this group when it's posted.  Even better is to follow the beta group, but I know that not everyone will do that."

In my opinion some moderators are less than properly receptive to change.  I don’t agree, so 
I attempted to post this response to the above:

"I cannot envision “serious effects” greater than a moderator “permissions” that allows a moderator to demote or eliminate a group’s owner.  This has long been under discussion.  Reasonable consensus has been reached that this should be changed so as to be impossible.  All argument against is based on “what if”, or “it’s been that way for so long, what’s YOUR problem.  

I sometime wonder if all of us are speaking the same language.  When an important “fix” is apparently “lost in the pile” a way to “bump” consideration and invoke higher priority would seem appropriate.  Any suggestion(s) as to what to do when there IS just cause to get impatient?

WRB”

My “…message was not approved” for the  following reason:  

"While I agree that having that moderator permission allow any effect on owners is a bad thing, it is not in the same order of magnitude as something that blocks message delivery or otherwise impairs ongoing operation of the site.

There are enough topics discussing the Moderator permissions issue, we don't need to bring that discussion into this topic.”

OK, fine.  I’ll bring this matter HERE for discussion.  I believe it inappropriate that ANY moderator presume to unilaterally interfere with legitimate discussion on any “issue”.  Whether we discuss it HERE or THERE, there MUST be an acceptable place and way for such discussion.  

The subject above is the issue:  "Protecting the original Owner from rogue co-Owners #suggestion”.  Maybe this subject should have been submitted as a “Bug".  It certainly isn't a “Feature”.

It should be obvious that certain existing moderators presently enjoy the power to demote or remove an existing or rightful owner SOLELY because Groups.io checkbox descriptions were unclear as to disclose the full range of actions thus “authorized”.   These checkboxes are part of the initial process of setting up a group here.  It’s just plain wrong not to timely disclose what is being thus authorized.
  
The result is an ongoing unnecessary and undesired threat to the internal harmony and even continued existence of each such group.  It should be self-evident that ending this problem of long standing should receive support, not resistance; and higher priority from within Groups.io.  After all, this problem was NOT created by those owners, but by Groups.io.

Opinions?  Poll?

WRB

— 



Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 06:37 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:
The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go to seek help.  <snip>  Supposed to be Owners helping Owners, but rarely is a question answered by someone other than a "Moderator".
Although this is wildly off - topic for beta one reason is that many Group Owners on GMF only go there to pose a question and look at the responses; they don't go there to try to help others and generally see what is going on. They are only interested in their own problems and not anyone else's.

Take away the moderators and see what happens...

Chris


Glenn Glazer
 

On 2/16/2020 11:23, Chris Jones via Groups.Io wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 06:37 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:
The GMF is supposed to be a place for Owners to go to seek help.  <snip>  Supposed to be Owners helping Owners, but rarely is a question answered by someone other than a "Moderator".
Although this is wildly off - topic for beta one reason is that many Group Owners on GMF only go there to pose a question and look at the responses; they don't go there to try to help others and generally see what is going on. They are only interested in their own problems and not anyone else's.

Take away the moderators and see what happens...

Chris

I generally agree with what Chris is saying here, but I will add that moderation is stylistic, just like anything else. I very strongly suspect that all of us in our own groups moderate differently than others, there is no One True Way. Moderation styles run from literally no moderation, anything goes to rather draconic approaches and a spectrum between them. In part, it depends on the group's needs and culture as it evolves and also on the personal tastes of the moderators. Welcome to the human condition.

For me, personally, do I believe that GMF is a bit too strongly moderated? Yes. But I don't complain about it because a) the right answer is, "Well, start your own group then." and I don't want to take that on and b) because I recognize the really good (and mostly thankless) work that Shal, Duane and others do, so I'm willing to put up with their style because I evaluate people holistically, not just on whatever burr happens to rub me the wrong way.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 07:52 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
I generally agree with what Chris is saying here, <snip> For me, personally, do I believe that GMF is a bit too strongly moderated?
Ah; a misunderstanding. I was responding to the comment that it was only moderators who answer questions on GMF. I said take away the moderators, not take away the moderation! In other words if the moderators didn't answer the questions then many questions would be either unanswered or perhaps answered incompletely or even incorrectly.

Chris


 

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 11:57 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
I said take away the moderators, not take away the moderation! In other words if the moderators didn't answer the questions then many questions would be either unanswered or perhaps answered incompletely or even incorrectly.
I think that's because mostly, the people in GMF rather than beta are not as knowledgeable about the product (pretty much by definition - they are sent to GMF rather than beta to ask their basic help questions). So they simply don't have the capability to answer others' questions. It's not that they are ungenerous. And while it's true that most of the moderators in GMF are more knowledgeable than most of the rank-and-file members, they don't need to be moderators, or to moderate (in whatever "moderation style" GMF has decided on), to be knowledgeable. It's their knowledge and familiarity with groups.io, rather than the fact that they are moderators, that you would not want to take away.  
 
--
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