moderated Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion


Jeremy H
 

Ultimately, while no one wants this, the point may be reached when FREE cannot be continued: the choice then becomes pay or lose... as I've mentioned before, in this situation, there is no good option, only a choice of bad or worse...

Note: members are members of Groups.io, having a relationship with it separate from, but combining, their membership of groups. Groups.io 'knows', and 'acts on', both that X is a member of group Y, and that group Y has X as a member, as required.

My thoughts on 'message to users' for (and so 'members view' of) Samuel's proposal (as I understand, and would intend it implemented - in bullet point form - would need revision before sending out):
  • Groups.io costs money - someone has to pay. The current model, of free memberships, with payment by (some) group owners is unsustainable.
  • There is a consequent need for members to contribute, so we (groups.io) invite you to take out a 'Contributing Member' subscription ($? p.a.), to help ensure the continuance, growth and developement of Groups.io. We hope you feel it worth it....
  • 'Contributing Members' will benefit from unlimited groups memberships; also possible future additional features may only be available to 'Contributing Members'  
  • In the future, some groups will only have a limited number of spaces available for non-contributing members.
  • There is no requirement to become a 'Contributing Member': you may continue as a free member, with your current group memberships and features unchanged (including use of web interface).
  • But you may not able to join additional groups (if they do not have 'free' spaces available), or take advantage of new features.
Notes:
  • People will continue to be able join as free members (though with an invitation to become a 'Contributing Member')
  • Invitations to become a 'Contributing Member' can/should be sent periodically...
  • When someone wishes to join a 'full' group (no free spaces), they should (perhaps) be invited to become a 'Contributing Member' for the purpose, on a 30(?) day provisional/trial basis.
  • For a 'full' restricted group, the ability of group owner to add an additional 'free' space must be considered: possibly the process should be an additional response to 'can I join?' - 'yes, if you become a 'Contributing Member'; or an initial request take it on 'trial' basis (cancellable on rejection).  Process may differ, depending on whether additional 'free' spaces are bought by the block (50? 100?), or individually.
  • If a group is full, with public archive, etc., then someone with free membership will still be able to read the archive, etc.: just be unable to join, and post, etc, as a member,

Jeremy


txercoupemuseum.org
 

The logic supporting your absolute pronouncement here is not clear to me.

Let me put this another way…a group owner has little, if any, control or input as to Groups.io rules or fees.  He/she is a “subscriber” to Groups.io and pretty much has to “take it or leave it” regarding what Groups.io chooses to offer.

When Groups.io directly or indirectly increases a group’s fees, said “subscribing" group owner has choice. He/she may “eat” (pay themselves) such increases, pass those increases on to subscribers, or leave Groups.io.  In either case, a group owner’s subscribers have NO SAY.

In my preceding post, "Fine, but, in my humbug’s;e opinion…” was a spell check interpretation of “Fine, but in my humble opinion…  Sorry for any confusion.

Best,

WRB

— 

On Jan 9, 2021, at 9:20 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 06:33 PM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
If “the rules” change for group OWNERS, obviously those changes apply to their subscribers.
Disagree. If owner fees change, that is transparent to subscribers.
 
--
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



txercoupemuseum.org
 

I respectfully but emphatically disagree.  Incessant criticism without suggestion(s) for improvement is a waste of everyone’s time.  

I happen to believe this DISCUSSION, ongoing though it may be, is of considerable value to Mark.  It certainly makes him aware of infinitely more considerations than he would likely consider on his own.  Isn’t that good?

And I think we presume too much to expect a “perfect” solution to suddenly spring forth self-evident, clean, clear, and acceptable to all parties.  The parable is that the process necessary to produce both consensus and sausages is intrinsically messy and those participating need to accept that.  

When “the wine” is complete for putting into barrels, it will still be Mark, the vintner, who decides the “character” he wants in the finished product and when it has aged to the point he is willing to put his name and reputation on the final product.  Some things take time.  Nine women cannot have a baby in one month.
  
I think Mark’e original good intentions had a dark side in that with time and growth they are unsustainable in present form for the long term.  I further think we are extremely lucky that he has asked group owners to contribute their opinions for his consideration in resolving this problem.  

Ultimately, it will be Mark who adopts a course of action that will transition Groups.io into a sustainable organization capable of providing him with an acceptable long term income for his efforts.  I suggest that, in terms of input, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Best!

WRB

— 

On Jan 9, 2021, at 9:35 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 07:12 PM, Christos G. Psarras wrote:
or prunes membership, which itself can result in unintended removals making (other) members "payforit" indirectly.
That's right. It affects everybody, the whole works.

Samuel's idea piggybacks on (1) and adds an extra payment feature ,,, Group.io users can now themselves purchase an optional Groups.io sitewide account
Exactly. A big mess. Whereas simply changing the fee structure for owners is invisible to other users. It doesn't have to be Mark's original plan. Maybe that's too expensive, maybe the membership limits need adjusting, maybe not, whatever. But it doesn't turn everything upside down, it's invisible to users, and it's cleaner (no worrying about refunds after a member is kicked out, no worrying about the sequence and flow of confirmation/payment/group acceptance, and probably a dozen other complications).
 
--
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



 

Mark,

* Groups have a set number of "free member slots". Someone filling
one of these slots does not have to pay anything to Groups.io.
The number of included subscriptions (based on plan type) plus the additional per member fee slots purchased by the group I would refer to as "sponsored" subscriptions. The intent is to emphasize that those two types of subscription are equivalent: a limited resource that the group purchased through the base plan payment plus the per member payment. The group itself is sponsoring these members.

* Once the free member slots are filled up, someone wishing to be a
new member of the group would have to pay a yearly fee to Groups.io.
I'd like to have a different word than "paid" for these subscriptions, to avoid confusion with subscription slots purchased by the group. Possibly "sustaining" members. Maybe "at large" members, because they can join any* group (not just those with available "sponsored" slots).

*Any group that will have them - I'm not suggesting that they can bypass the approval process of Restricted membership groups.

* Are there any problems with this idea/reasons to not implement it?
I don't see any show-stoppers.

* Does there need to be a |try before you buy| period where someone
could subscribe to a group for 14 days (let's say) before having to
become a paid member?
That would likely make sense. Usually one doesn't know how well a group works for you without seeing the content and possibly interacting with other members.

At the end of the period perhaps put the subscription in a special inactive* status (rather than unsubscribing it). The status would operate like NC, Bouncing and Bounced in that the account would not be allowed to receive or post by email, nor use the group's web features. But unlike those, this would be a subscription status, not an account status (that is, the account could still participate in groups where it is sponsored).

*This inactive status is not to be confused with WRB's concept of actively posting versus passively listening (inactive, or lurking) members. Maybe I need a better word than "inactive" but I haven't thought of it yet.

The member can correct inactive status (or preferably preempt it) by paying for their account. The group owner could correct (or preempt) the inactive status by sponsoring the member.

One potential downside for Groups.io in this is that a "free trial" subscription may be all some users need. I'm thinking of "freecycle" style groups or help groups where once the transaction is complete or the help obtained the user may have no further interest in the group. Maybe that's ok, maybe it isn't.

* In Samuel's proposal, there's potentially a lot of member
management that has to be done by the owners and I wonder if we
reduce/simplify that?
I think the idea of an inactive membership (one that is neither sponsored by the group nor a paid account) provides a way create very easy management. If a group wants to free up a sponsored slot there can be a button/action to un-sponsor a subscription - which puts it into inactive status until corrected by the member choosing to pay for their subscription (or the group reversing its decision). This avoids a lot of the downsides of unsubscribing the member.

Group owners who want to actively manage their sponsorships will likely want the types of subscription metrics some have already been asking for. Things like most recent post, # of posts in the last year, etc.

Ideally this is something owners would not have to think about.
For groups owners who don't want to actively manage their sponsorships
I think simple mechanisms and suitable defaults can be devised that will produce reasonable results. The fundamental thing the owners must decide is which plan and how many sponsored members (if any, above the number included in the plan). After that it is a matter of choosing to actively manage the sponsorships or not.

Shal


 

J,

-Is the group owner supposed, or is groups.io going, to maintain a
wait list?
Neither.

Well, actually Groups.io but not in the way you're thinking.

-What about restricted groups with a questionnaire - are people
requesting admission supposed to complete the questionnaire knowing
they won't be admitted immediately, or perhaps not even knowing at
first?
Yes.

In my proposal the processing of pending members proceeds as normal, with the addition of telling the group moderator (in the pending email and in the Pending Approval tab of the Members list) of whether this applicant would need a group-sponsored slot, and if so how many such slots are available.

If a slot is not needed (the applicant has a paid account), or if one is needed and the moderator elects to apply one to this applicant, then approval proceeds as normal and the applicant becomes a member.

If a slot is needed and the group doesn't have any available, or the moderator elects not to apply one to this applicant, then approval makes this applicant an "inactive" member (that special status in my answer to Mark). Similar to NC status, the member cannot participate in the group (not even reading or receiving messages).

Like NC status this can be corrected after the fact. The member can correct it by paying for his/her account or a moderator can correct it by applying a sponsored slot to this member.

-Is the 14-day pending member limit (before deletion) going to be
removed?
With my scheme that needn't change: there's no new reason to hold someone in the Pending list; approve them with the knowledge that they may stay indefinitely inactive.

-In general, how and at what point, would or should requesting members
be notified that the group is temporarily full?
I'll have to think about whether the number of available sponsored slots should be shown in the group's home page and/or their directory listing. That would in some sense be friendly towards people with no means or desire to pay for their account, but it might lead to predatory behavior (over-subscribing to groups with available slots "just in case" or as a means of costing the group a valuable resource).

On the whole I'm inclined to say that the applicant finds out when they are Approved, and either become an active or inactive member. If the applicant is rejected then the question of available slots is moot, and they needn't have been informed sooner

-How, and this is not a technical issue, but how are group owners
supposed to figure out whom to remove (and how to inform them) if and
when a "more desirable" person requests admission?
Much of the heartache with this issue is reduced in my proposal, because you can inactivate a member to free a slot rather than removing them. Inactivation can and should be associated with a Member Notice by which the group says whatever they think needs to be said about the circumstances. But the key here is that the inactivation can be cured easily by the member or the moderator without all the overhead of removing them and having them re-apply.

-"Try before you buy" also sounds very tricky. How many people will be
allowed in on that basis? How would it be kept track of (in case
someone tries to repeatedly try), and other issues...
That's handled entirely by Groups.io. From the point of view of the group such people appear as paid accounts (no need to use up a slot). When their trial expires they go on Inactive status.

That event would be logged to the group's Activity page, and a group moderator can choose to receive a notice (like a "left group" notice). I don't know if it needs a separate control or just rolled into the moderator's subscription control for Members notices.

Shal


Samuel Murrayy
 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:25 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
...I would refer to
as "sponsored" subscriptions.
I specifically avoided the word "sponsor" because to me the word "sponsor" implies some kind of benevolent act, which is different from the purchase of services.  When individuals "sponsor" something, it implies selfless giving.  My idea is not that paying members are "sponsoring" Groups.io.  They're buying a service.

(Its true that advertisers can "sponsor" something, but that's a special case.  And people who are looking for sponsors for e.g. an association or non-profit organisation may offer something in exchange, but that is the not same as buying.)


 

Samuel,

My idea is not that paying members are "sponsoring" Groups.io.
Me neither.

I used "sponsored" to refer to slots paid for by the group owner (either as part of the base allotment or purchased with a per/member fee). In that sense it is a benevolent sponsoring of those members by the group.

The members that pay Groups.io for their account also need a word. "Paid account" is most accurate, but I also suggested "sustaining" or "at large". Not very happy with or wedded to any of the terms I've thought of so far for members with paid accounts.

Shal


 

David,

More to the point, these people are not groupies. They just want
e-mails and the idea of making them have an account and login to pay
is not going to work. Simplicity for the members is the goal.
For those running such a group the choices seem stark: pay up, go small, or go elsewhere.

That is, pay extra for additional members (beyond the number included in your group plan), don't pay extra and Groups.io will limit the size of your group, or move your group to a service that uses third parties (advertisers) to pay for the service. Mark has said he's ok with the idea that Groups.io might not be the best fit for some types of groups.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27473

I have no idea what would work best, but wanted the perspective of
e-mail-only users considered.
As the founding owner of a handful of groups whose members interact entirely or almost entirely by email, I understand the concern.

Two of my groups are likely never to exceed 100 members; they are restricted groups, one for family and one for classmates - though the latter arguably should have attracted a greater fraction of the class and would then have been a few hundred members.

Another classmate group is a couple hundred members, and a PTA group that has ranged from about a hundred to several hundred.

I don't think I can honestly imagine what I'd have done, four to six years ago when I migrated those groups off of Yahoo Groups, if Groups.io had then the pricing structures proposed now. Or even the feature set reductions already enacted for new groups. I /think/ I would have gone ahead with Premium for the classmates groups, as I could likely count on those members to help pay for the Premium fee, either using the Donations mechanism or informally.

With the PTA it might be dicey. They do charge unit members $10/year dues and could use some of that to pay the premium base price and some per member add-on. But the executive board might well decide that the money would be better spent elsewhere since we don't really need or use the features of a Premium group.

But for someone running a large (1000+ member) hobby or volunteer group that needs only basic email...

If having members buy accounts is off the table (for a given group) then I don't know how it can work without a very low per-member charge (for members over 100) - something that isn't part of the discussion right now - and a very benevolent group owner willing to front that cost and maybe get a few key members to help him/her pay for it.

(I'm assuming that going to a Premium plan wouldn't work for such a group because it would be ruinously expensive with high membership and very little value gained if they don't need the Premium features).

Shal


Janice
 

I'm so very glad my group of about 1900 is a grandfathered Premium group which I pay $10 a month for out of my own pocket.  I kept that secret from my members for a long time.  Eventually, the members found out and a few have offered to send me $$$ to help.  I have told them I would rather they donate something to a no-kill animal shelter in lieu of sending me money and some do that.    I think that the idea of some people paying for membership and others not paying could make for unintentional friction among the members of a group.  People are funny that way.   The proposals I have read about seem cumbersome and a headache for an owner or Groups.io to manage.  I, myself, would rather put up with a few discrete advertisements then deal with the possible headaches for the proposed plans.  But, I know most would object to advertisements so that is not likely to happen.  Again, I am so grateful that my group is a grandfathered Premium group and I thank Mark for that perk.  I chose to set up a Premium group because I needed the higher MB storage option and occasionally use Direct Add.  We don't use any of the other Premium features.   I'm keeping my fingers crossed that my grandfathered status will not be done away with in the near or distant future.  

Janice B
New Statler Siblings Group Owner
Long Arm Quilters


Sandi D <sandi.asgtechie@...>
 

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 09:25 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I'd like to have a different word than "paid" for these subscriptions, to avoid confusion with subscription slots purchased by the group
Perhaps mirror the same terms as the proposed group tiers. A Basic Member and a Premium Member. 

On another note, I think many are making this overly complicated. Right now if a new group owner were to create a basic group after Jan 18 and the 101st member applied to join a Basic group they can't join. Period. 

The same questions apply. Will they go on a waiting list for a vacancy? Will a non participating member be removed so the new one can join? Will the group owner elect to upgrade to Premium? If so, will all members now be forced to contribute to that cost? Who pays the $0.55 per member cost that is being proposed over the Premium capped member limit. 

Under the proposed plan of GIO paid account holders the GIO account holder would have the option to apply and be approved to join a Basic group as member 101. Nothing would change for any of the other existing group members nor for the owner of that Basic group if the group accepted their 101st member in this way.

Ditto for Premium groups for potential member 401. 

What this proposal does is to allow GIO account holders to join newly created groups that they otherwise could not join due to member caps. 

If right now, today, Mark had grandfathered legacy group owners in and said the legacy group could not increase membership, would you see things differently?

Please try to put yourself in the proposed new group owner's shoes. They want member 101 or member 401. Member 101 and Member 401 want to join. Members 101, 401 and upwards are willing to pay $3, $5, $10, etc a year to be able to join the myriad of GIO groups that will be created with membership caps after Jan 18th. 

After Jan 18, new group owners have tough choices. Who gets removed so as not to exceed 100 or 400? Who gets admitted if more than one person applies for their remaining slot?

After Jan 18 GIO account holders have a rough time of it. Applying for groups and being denied because it would send the group over their member limit. Keep searching in the hopes that a group under their member limits will be found. Or deciding to not use and not to recommend GIO because the groups they found and want to join are capped. 

I don't recall any other group/forum service that allowed individuals to create a personal account and then allows them to search for groups they are interested in and then, after applying, are told, "Sorry our group is full, you can't join until we have a vacant slot".

I think some group owners may not realize that people come to GIO, create their account and then search for groups to join. I did that. I searched, found and join existing groups long before I ever created a group.

I have read many a discussion from group owners about the GIO search process and how they aren't found as easily as they used to be. It's people with individual accounts that are joining groups. GIO needs individual account holders to remain viable under "a search to join group model. It seems to me that a good number of group owners opposing Samuels proposal envision GIO soley as a Hosting Platform for group owners.

Discussing Samuels proposal is about finding a way that would allow GIO account holders the opportunity to join capped membership groups. It's about offering ways for capped membership groups to grow in membership without forcing either the owner(s) to pay or forcing the owner(s) to collect money from their existing members so they can upgrade and accept member 101 or cover the per member expenses beyond member 400.
 
--
Sandi Dickenson


Paul Kanevsky
 

I own a number of groups, the larger one is just about 5000 users. All hobby-related, some have been in existence for nearly 20 years. I can't see the group membership not falling drastically if members are required to pay individual annual fees. [Mod Note: Again, current groups are considered legacy and their pricing will not change.]

For my groups, I'd rather occasionally beg for donations than have each member deal with this individually. A simple tiered structure could work based on the number of members, something like this:

0-500 members = free (or free with ads)
1000 = $
2500 = $$
5000+ = $$$

It would be good to get a discount for pre-paying for a number of years. I'd rather fund-raise once every few years than every year. As the group exceeds a tier threshold, an additional payment may become required. This seems simple enough for anyone to understand, and the pricing and tiers can be adjusted over time. 

Regards,

   -Paul


Duane
 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:59 AM, Paul Kanevsky wrote:
A simple tiered structure could work
That's already covered in the new pricing structure that goes into effect on the 18th, https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27191

This topic is about the possibility of individual members sharing the costs of running the site so that the entire burden isn't laid on group owners.

Duane


 

Another day, another thought. The closest situation to groups.io that I can think of is Meetup. A couple of years ago Meetup, which was formerly free, started to charge group owners a yearly fee. It provided group owners with a means of charging their members, but members were free to pay or not pay. I never owned a group on Meetup but I was formerly a member of a couple of them. And I remember that the member payment was optional per group. There is no way I would have stayed in Meetup  if I, as a member, had had to pay a yearly fee simply to belong to the platform. And I think what it comes down is that's because I, as a mere group member rather than owner, did not have an investment in the groups I belonged to. I could participate as much or as little as I wanted to, I could disappear for long periods of time and come back (and having had to pay for all that time in between would have been a dealbreaker). So in thinking about the general philosophy, equities, and psychology of whether to charge just owners (who then could, if they so desired, request optional reimbursements from members) or charge members directly, I think it comes down to just that: who has the real investment in a group. And that's the owner.

To the person who scolded me a few days ago for posting what I didn't like about Samuel's plan without suggesting remedies ("criticizing without providing solutions," I think he called it), I refer to Mark's original post in this thread. He specifically asked for problems and why it should not be implemented. He did not ask for solutions.

And now I'll go hide under a rock again for the next few days, until something else occurs to me. :-)
--
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,


A couple of years ago Meetup, which was formerly free, started to charge group owners a yearly fee. It provided group owners with a means of charging their members, but members were free to pay or not pay.

That sounds exactly like the situation under Mark's original proposal, plus a mechanism for voluntary payments by members (which I and others suggested).

There is no way I would have stayed in Meetup  if I, as a member, had had to pay a yearly fee simply to belong to the platform.

In the context of this topic I think what you're saying is that you as a group member wouldn't use Samual's Paid User Proposal. That's ok, Samuel's proposal doesn't require it of you. Going back to Mark's original post in this topic, maybe some kind-hearted group owner will allocate you a subscription from the "free member slots" they've purchased (plan base fee plus add-on per-member fee).

Shal


 

I see from this that Autofollow Replies takes precedence over Mute This Topic lol.


On Jan 11, 2021, at 1:18 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:


J,


A couple of years ago Meetup, which was formerly free, started to charge group owners a yearly fee. It provided group owners with a means of charging their members, but members were free to pay or not pay.

That sounds exactly like the situation under Mark's original proposal, plus a mechanism for voluntary payments by members (which I and others suggested).

There is no way I would have stayed in Meetup  if I, as a member, had had to pay a yearly fee simply to belong to the platform.

In the context of this topic I think what you're saying is that you as a group member wouldn't use Samual's Paid User Proposal. That's ok, Samuel's proposal doesn't require it of you. Going back to Mark's original post in this topic, maybe some kind-hearted group owner will allocate you a subscription from the "free member slots" they've purchased (plan base fee plus add-on per-member fee).

Shal


--
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 Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:18 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
exactly like the situation under Mark's original proposal,
Yes. As I've said (frequently;), Mark's original proposal was fine with me even if it needs some tweaking as to amounts and/or limits.

you as a group member wouldn't use Samual's Paid User Proposal.
Yes because that's what THIS thread is about.

Going back to Mark's original post in this topic, maybe some kind-hearted group owner will allocate you a subscription from the "free member slots" they've purchased (plan base fee plus add-on per-member fee).
I see the two proposals as separate and I see Samuel's proposal as ruining the original one.
 
--
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'm going to unfollow again now.
--
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
 

If you have a 'number of members' based charging scheme, then members become a cost, that someone has to pay.

In Mark's original scheme, this would fall solely on group owners. Some will be happy with this, some will not.

The advantage of Samuel's proposal is that it permits group owners who are happy to pay to do so; and provides a means for those who are not to have groups in which the members pick up the cost.

As such - giving group owners the choice - it's the better option.

Jeremy


 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:18 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
context of this topic I think what you're saying is that you as a group member wouldn't use Samual's Paid User Proposal. That's ok, Samuel's proposal doesn't require it of you. Going back to Mark's original post in this topic, maybe some kind-hearted group owner will allocate you a subscription from the "free member slots" they've purchased (plan base fee plus add-on per-member fee).
Since people are contacting me offlist now, I've been forced out from under my rock again and am going to answer: I don't see Samuel's proposal in any way equivalent to the Meetup situation or any other situation where only group owners are charged by the system. Even in Meetup (not that I'm putting Meetup out there as anything to emulate, but just as something that allowed me to feel what it would have hypothetically been like to have been charged by the platform, which would have been unacceptable) - even in Meetup, group members are not charged *by the system*. The system merely facilitates the group owner asking them for payment or donation. In Samuel's proposal members are charged by the system unless they manage to be comp'd in by the owner.

My sole objection is to group members being charged by the platform itself. I feel strongly that groups.io should only charge owners. It would be fine for groups.io to make things easier for group owners who want to pass that cost along to willing members, and it in fact is already doing that by allowing for donations. Perhaps that could be enhanced somehow. But that is a far cry from groups.io directly charging non-owner members.
 
--
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


Duane
 

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 05:10 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
in fact is already doing that by allowing for donations
But not on Basic groups.  The method being discussed allows anyone to 'buy-in' to support GIO, owner or not, but IS NOT required.

I maybe wrong, and Mark should correct me if I am, but the new pricing plan goes into effect on the 18th - period.  Any additions/changes, such as this proposal, would come into being at a later date if/when the comments are 'digested' and the programming is done.

Duane