I have commented in the past on this subject and completely agree with the thoughtful and introspective points made by respective posters below. ?This problem is a continuing one that won¡¯t go away until meaningfully addressed.
Moderator opinions have, in my opinion, unduly discouraged earlier discussions on this subject. ?Shouldn¡¯t they encourage legitimate discussions rather than discourage them?
Complete trust is not always possible for a founder or owner to place in a potential successor. ?For that reason circumstances should never force a founder or owner to transfer powers to additional ¡°owners" in advance of need to insure a group does not die when the single owner ceases to do what must be done from time to time. ?
Human nature is such that there is NO management situation in which two ¡°Alphas¡± are an advantage. ?If there is a ¡°good¡± ¡°equal" owner and a ¡°bad¡± ¡°equal¡± owner, I absolutely assure one and all that the bad one will prevail in such scenario. ?That¡¯s not in the best interest(s of any group.
There should be an option available to a single founder or group owner to designate one and alternate successors to advance to ownership powers ONLY when the present ¡°management¡± is no longer acting as necessary to preserve group functions and continuity, in the same sense as a ¡°springing¡± Power of Attorney¡± whose power does not exist until needed.
Since the majority of these diverse elements do not originate with me, I defer to earlier posters to submit the request for consideration to <beta>.
Best!
WRB
¡ª?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jan 13, 2021, at 7:16 PM, ro-esp < ro-esp@...> wrote: On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 09:26 PM, Michael Pavan wrote: Clearly this is important concern and no solution has been enacted, though
some improvements have been made since the last time I got involved in this
debate.
We will need to take this to <beta> , in due time when Mark isn't too busy Some Owners object because they think it is unnecessary and/or don't want it
for their group.?
My suggestion was to at least clearly imply it: if you want your group to die with you, don't appoint a moderator. If you want your group to continue, do appoint a moderator. Making it explicit would be better As it would be quite difficult for Mark&co to figure out who is dead, maybe just allow succession-requests no sooner than when the original owner has not been active in any group for 2 or 3 months, and have them step in to ask the group whether anybody has objections to promoting the moderator to owner For those who don't want an Owner Succession feature enabled it should
be easy to Opt-Out - this relieves management from having to become
involved in the issue, because the Owner has already made the decision.?
exactly ??????????????????????????groetjes/?is, Ronaldo
On Jan 13, 2021, at 3:39 PM, Art Kocsis via < ArtKoc@...> wrote:
<snip>
FOBLO (Fear of Being Locked Out), is a real thing and could be easily assuaged. Simply restrict owner deletion/demotion solely to the owner account: an owner can only demote him/her self. While an owner can promote another to owner status it ?would be a one-way street - no owner could demote another owner. While that would not prevent a malicious owner from causing havoc it would preclude an original owner from losing control of the group.
Alternatively (or in addition to), assigning special status flags to owners could alleviate some problems:
Founder owner - the creator of a group - cannot be deleted except by the founder himself
Funding owner - the owner of the CC on file that made/makes premium payments
Designated successor owner - to be promoted to Founding(?) owner upon a TBD trigger
FOBLO would be especially worrisome for a Funding Owner under the scenario of being locked out while his credit card is still on file for automatic payments that he cannot terminate. (without closing his CC account which has serious credit score repercussions).
While these would not solve all of the problems, mitigating a large source of dangers should encourage more/most group owners to create/designate successors and reduce the number of orphaned groups on GIO.
Art
BUT, no owner is needed if there is a moderator with all permissions, so they could still operate the group.? No need to opt in or out, just set up a moderator.? I don't see what would be gained by having a succession feature.? Any owner could appoint a moderator like that without fear of being tossed out and the group could continue.
I'm not saying Mark wouldn't consider it, but don't see a need as things stand, so he could spend his time on more pressing things.
Duane
On Jan 13, 2021, at 1:52 PM, Michael Pavan <michaelpavan@...> wrote: <snip>
An Owner Succession feature could include Delete Group, Lock Group, and Remove All Members as options...
However my primary concern, which I believe most share, is for a group to be able to continue with a new Owner.?
Currently there is not enough protection for an Owner to be comfortable in many/most cases to have multiple Owners, or to designate who (or how) a Moderator or Member would be promoted to Owner¡ On Jan 13, 2021, at 12:52 PM, KWKloeber via < KWKloeber@...> wrote:
It¡¯s similar to a medical power of attorney - it takes someone to determine the person is incapacitated (i.e., unable for whatever reason to continue as owner, thus triggering the next one(s) in line obtaining ALL privileges/rights.)
The reason a group may have only one Owner is that they want to ensure that another Owner does not depose them.
Giving a Moderator all Permissions:
- does protect the Owner from being deposed IF there is only one Owner<snip>
<snip>
All of this means that having no 'Owner Succession' feature does not solve the problem, only 'kicks it down the road'.
I'm this real concern will continue to be periodically brought up.
So far, only some Moderator Permissions have consequently been modified, which is an improvement but not a Solution.
Unfortunately, its priority has never risen high enough to institute a solution, hopefully it won't be too many more years before this obvious need is addressed.
My suggestions are:
- That there be a hierarchy of Owners (to encourage multiple Owners), set by the most senior Owner controlling whether junior Owners can remove a more senior Owner or Delete Group).
- That Owner Succession be automated with its trigger(s) controlled by the most senior Owner, so that management is never burdened by having to be involved.
Michael
|
