Is there a way to transfer a Yahoo?group over but not include the memberships. ?We have some members with messed up settings, or missing names, plus some new email addresses. ?Can we just move all the rest?of the?items (messages, file, photos, etc.) and then direct add the membership?

Thanks,
Tom

Received from Glenn Glazer at 7/1/2018 10:23 PM UTC:

The general term I would prefer is "Admin" since they administrate various features.

Best,

Glenn

Then that's what you should call them. It's not like the average group member is familiar with the terms Owner and Moderator and even if they are you can still call the people you select for special duties Admins.

Jim H

Ken,

... but shouldn't I receive a copy if I, a moderator, add the
moderator's link to CC or BCC

Certainly a CC to the +owner address should be distributed to the mods and owners. Subject to each mod/owner's subscription option on whether to receive +owner messages.

I know Y!Groups discards BCC messages to the -owner address as an anti-spam measure, but I don't recall if Groups.io does likewise; I don't think so.

or is that not implemented in the "command" action?

The action of sending a CC or BCC copy of the message happens at your email service; so the fact that another copy of the message was sent to a command address shouldn't affect the processing of the copy sent to +owner.

Shal


--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

Glenn
Our? Board of Directors are in both groups.
The corporate secretary sets up calendars in both groups where necessary.? That also helps keep down any RSVP confusion, etc.
If a calendar event is Board or committee specific it isn't expressed in the member group.

But different strokes, etc
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends??
Founder & Executive Director,?

The general term I would prefer is "Admin" since they administrate various features.

Best,

Glenn

The definition of “Moderate” includes "limited in scope or effect”.

“Moderator" is not inappropriate, as speech (actually message posting) is not the only function that can be moderated. Moderators (in group email Lists) can also control member approvals, file and photo uploading, poll creation, Calendar / Reminder functions, etc.

If the title “Moderator” feels uncomfortable, include your group’s definition of what a Moderator is and can do. This definition could be on your Group Description, New Member Notice, and/or Message Footer, etc.

One can argue that “Controller” might be more accurate title, but the established tradition is “Moderator” and I do not favor creating more ambiguity of terms by changing it.

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:35 pm, Glenn Glazer wrote:

Will think some more on this and report back if I come up with something brilliant.

I cannot claim that this suggestion is anything "brilliant", but would making your Calendar editable by subscribers work? Or would it be too vulnerable to mistakes and inadvertent deletions?

Chris

_._,_._,

This inquiry was actually in response to my making the calendar subscriber editable and our Vice-Chair making that exact same criticism.? I personally don't think that's a problem, but was looking for something that would satisfy their trepidations.

Best,

Glenn

On 7/1/2018 12:48, Shal Farley wrote:

Glenn,

Will think some more on this and report back if I come up with
something brilliant.

There's this suggestion, which includes the idea of a merged calendar which aggregates events from the primary and subgroups. That might solve a couple of the problems with using a subgroup calendar.


There are also some years-old wishes in the beta group for the ability to moderate member contributions/edits to the web features (calendar, database, files, photos, wiki). And for more granular access control generally.

Perhaps what you're looking for fits in with some of those ideas.

Shal

Yep.? Charles Reid and I are on the same page in that request as noted downthread, the generalization to other features besides calendar.? IMHO, more granular is always better because you can implement coarse grained control with granular but not the other way around.

/me sits and waits patiently for the new features.

Best,

Glenn

On 7/1/2018 12:46, Bob Bellizzi wrote:

We simply set up a basic free group just for this purpose.? That way there is no confusion when posting.
Also, if you need more subdivision you can? do it in the separate Executive group and maintain a clean? structure.

The separation causes the Executive members to think about where they are? posting.
Otherwise, one could be embarrassed if an executive conversation accidentally appeared on the member group

I get what you are saying, Bob, but our use case is somewhat different in that the Eboard wants to edit a calendar that is visible by the members.

Best,

Glenn

Glenn,

Will think some more on this and report back if I come up with
something brilliant.

There's this suggestion, which includes the idea of a merged calendar which aggregates events from the primary and subgroups. That might solve a couple of the problems with using a subgroup calendar.


There are also some years-old wishes in the beta group for the ability to moderate member contributions/edits to the web features (calendar, database, files, photos, wiki). And for more granular access control generally.

Perhaps what you're looking for fits in with some of those ideas.

Shal


--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

We simply set up a basic free group just for this purpose.? That way there is no confusion when posting.
Also, if you need more subdivision you can? do it in the separate Executive group and maintain a clean? structure.

The separation causes the Executive members to think about where they are? posting.
Otherwise, one could be embarrassed if an executive conversation accidentally appeared on the member group
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends??
Founder & Executive Director,?

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:35 pm, Glenn Glazer wrote:

Will think some more on this and report back if I come up with something brilliant.

I cannot claim that this suggestion is anything "brilliant", but would making your Calendar editable by subscribers work? Or would it be too vulnerable to mistakes and inadvertent deletions?

Chris

开云体育

On 7/1/2018 12:31, Shal Farley wrote:

Glenn,

I wrote:

There's no feature to create new roles, but you might be able to get
the effect you want by using a subgroup for the Executive Board.

Oops.

I missed a gaping flaw with that idea: members of the primary group could not receive notices or reminders from the subgroup's calendar.

Shal

Oh.? Yeah, that would be a deal-breaker for us.

Will think some more on this and report back if I come up with something brilliant.

Best,

Glenn

Glenn,

I wrote:

There's no feature to create new roles, but you might be able to get
the effect you want by using a subgroup for the Executive Board.

Oops.

I missed a gaping flaw with that idea: members of the primary group could not receive notices or reminders from the subgroup's calendar.

Shal


--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:00 pm, Glenn Glazer wrote:

Since "moderators" isn't appropriate, I would like to create a new role called "Executive Board" or "EBoard", assign members to that role and then privileges only to that role.

Is this possible?

No, this is not currently possible.

I feel that the title of "Moderator" is somewhat unfortunate. In groups.io, individual Moderator roles and notifications are highly configurable and -- if you want -- can be totally unrelated to the screening of incoming messages (see list below). I suggest you investigate that option further.

Hope this helps,
Bruce
?
--
The system Help is your friend.??/static/help

On 7/1/2018 12:23, Shal Farley wrote:

Glenn,

Since "moderators" isn't appropriate, I would like to create a new
role called "Executive Board" or "EBoard", assign members to that role
and then privileges only to that role.

There's no feature to create new roles, but you might be able to get the effect you want by using a subgroup for the Executive Board.

The calendar of the Executive Board subgroup can be set to "Public can view, Subscribers can view and edit". That would allow only members of the Executive Board subgroup to update that calendar.

The "public can view" part might be a concern, as I think that means public, and not just members of the primary group. And you'd probably want to disable the primary group's calendar; and the members of the primary group would need to be taught to look at the subgroup's calendar instead. So not necessarily the most convenient work-around.

But you may find other advantages to having a subgroup for the Executive Board, it would give them the resources of a group (including their own messages) that could be private from the primary group at large.

Sha

Thanks, Shal, that's an useful insight.? I don't think we care if the calendar is public because the state bylaws say that all of our meetings are open to the public.

Best,

Glenn

Glenn,

Since "moderators" isn't appropriate, I would like to create a new
role called "Executive Board" or "EBoard", assign members to that role
and then privileges only to that role.

There's no feature to create new roles, but you might be able to get the effect you want by using a subgroup for the Executive Board.

The calendar of the Executive Board subgroup can be set to "Public can view, Subscribers can view and edit". That would allow only members of the Executive Board subgroup to update that calendar.

The "public can view" part might be a concern, as I think that means public, and not just members of the primary group. And you'd probably want to disable the primary group's calendar; and the members of the primary group would need to be taught to look at the subgroup's calendar instead. So not necessarily the most convenient work-around.

But you may find other advantages to having a subgroup for the Executive Board, it would give them the resources of a group (including their own messages) that could be private from the primary group at large.

Shal


--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:59 am, Ken Schweizer wrote:

Any message of explanation entered before forwarding appears to be removed before it is sent to the original sender.

In the strictest sense you aren't "sending an email"; you are sending a command to Groups.io to reject a post. Similarly an ("email") command sent to release a post to the members cannot be used to edit the post, e.g. trim off excessive quotation or correct an obvious and perhaps confusing spelling error.

Is using the web interface that much of a chore?

Chris

On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:00 pm, Glenn Glazer wrote:

Since "moderators" isn't appropriate, I would like to create a new role called "Executive Board"...

Why is "moderators" inappropriate? Seems like a lot of work (for Mark) just to avoid using the word "moderator".

You could always make them (co)owners...

Chris

_._,_._,_

Moderators is inappropriate because, wait for it, they don't moderate and the even the implication that the speech of our members is moderated is against the culture of the group.? And I can see use cases for other kinds of roles in addition to just {member, moderator, owner} for some groups.? For example, a group might have a separate set of members who manage their databases or their files.? For reference, I see this from a UNIX RBAC perspective, which permits an arbitrary number of roles.? .

That said, the answer to the question I actually asked is apparently no?

Best,

Glenn