开云体育

I look forward to the answer to this also. Changes made on the Owner page don’t look the same on a Member page.?

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 08:51 PM, Niman H wrote:

Is there a way to have 2 or more accounts (ie, email addresses, I think that's the right term) open on gio at one time?

Niman -- You can do this if one of the instances is opened in incognito mode (a Chrome term...I don't know what it's called using other browsers). Such instances do not share cookies, and thus you can effectively have two different logins open at the same time.

Disclaimer: I have not actually attempted this using any browser other than Chrome.

Regards,
Bruce

---

Check out the groups.io Help Center?and?groups.io Owners Manual

Is there a way to have 2 or more accounts (ie, email addresses, I think that's the right term) open on gio at one time? It would be helpful to have a moderator and regular member account open at the same time to see how different settings are affected, etc, instead of having to log in and out (and in and out).
Thanks

Ronaldo,

yeah, but if we refine the proposal here we may prevent a huge thread
on beta

I agree, although I think we can be assured that something as "core" as this will get some discussion from those who didn't see it here (or even those that did).

I could see that my earlier suggestion wasn't ready for "prime time" (beta) so I'm happy to get a lot of comments and refinements here.

I think we need to be able to propose something that works without
intervention by Groups.io support.

I don't think that it's possible to make that "watertight"

No, I do not expect to cover all possible cases.

But if there are more cases that we can cover (without the proposal getting unweildy) then we should discuss them here.

I think a proposal that includes intervention (explicitly or implicitly) would be a non-starter for Mark. Then, the more we can keep it as simple to implement and describe as possible the more attractive it would be from his point of view.

I'm missing an adjective before "absence".. maybe "longterm" or
"permanent"

I don't want to define the interval, that's what the second control does. That is, I think different owners will prefer different time frames. We could discuss here whether the time frame needs to be limited, and if so how. One vision is a drop-list to select one from a limited number of choices. Another vision is a numeric control with a (relatively) unlimited range.

maybe make it possible to appoint a MEMBER to take over

I avoided that for the two reasons I recently mentioned to Ken. The philosophical one is, why not give them at least a little training as a moderator first. The practical one is that there can be a huge number of members to select from in some groups. Having to dig through a longer list each time your consider (or reconsider) succession makes it that much more tedious.

But if there's a will I'm sure there's a way.

delete the word "inbound"

I was perhaps too terse. What I mean to exclude is email delivery to that owner, which may continue to succeed indefinitely despite the owner's inability or unwillingness to manage the group.

What problem is there to be solved when you have multiple owners?

Cases where they all go absent at once, or at least in close enough time that the last of them hasn't yet chosen a successor.

o Allows the owner(s) to establish a chain of succession ...

For a group with a few dozen members, that seems like overkill

True. But it is only a capability, not a requirement.

The owner of a group may designate a single successor, or none at all, or set two successors to be promoted at the same time, or whatever seems most reasonable to him/her.

simply by setting progressively longer times for each moderator in
the line of succession.

I have no idea what you mean here

In my proposed controls I associated an interval with each candidate successor.

The owner(s) of the group can set them all to the same interval, in which case they are all promoted at once. Or the owner can set them each to a different interval, in which case they will be promoted in sequence, shortest to longest, until one of them is active (which resets this clock that defines "absent").

I assume that first successive owner will re-arrange the succession controls to reflect his/her own judgement about further succession when his/her time comes. But if not there's still the next in sequence from the original list.

Shal






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

Ken,

One option that might make the automatic option more trustable would
be that an owner must have more than one way to be contacted. Like an
additional email, text, or voice response phone number.

Agreed.

At the account level also: having a list of alternate forms of contact would be a good things for notifications about many situations (password changes, primary email address change, etc.).

That last part, that a group member might be promoted, covers where
the single owner didn't want other moderators.

I didn't suggest including members in the line of succession for two reasons. One is the question of training them to the tasks. The single owner can always limit the permissions of the moderators to nearly nothing.

The other is that I immensely dislike drop-lists (or nearly any other type of control) where one must choose one or more out of a list of more than 20 or so. Granted, some groups may have more than 20 moderators, but also some groups have thousands of members (shudder).

Shal


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

Ken . . .

On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 04:12:47 +0000, "Ken Schweizer"
<kensch888@...> wrote:

Once ideas are garnered here, we could take Mark an idea in Beta to have
anyone Banned have a red B by their application so we can make a better
decicion about their application.

I believe all someone with bad intentions has to do is to join with another e-mail address.

I agree. The comments you quoted were not mine but Bill's. I don't see
anything useful an indication would do to help me keep out
troublemakers.

I do think the banning helps with some people but it is possible that
they could, indeed, create another account and join as a new member.
It might even be better to just lock them on moderated status and not
approve any of their posts, or just the ones that are appropriate.

Donald -- AD8DY
Formerly KJ3I


----------------------------------------------------
Some ham radio groups you may be interested in:
/g/ICOM /g/Ham-Antennas
/g/HamRadioHelp /g/Baofeng
/g/CHIRP

Art,

My groups operated on Yahoo for years without any owner activity (a
feat, unfortunately, unable to be achieved on GIO!).

I may have missed it, but why do you think not?

The mechanisms here and there regarding the capabilities of owners versus moderators have been made nearly identical to what was possible in Yahoo Groups. Mostly by co-evolution (meeting the same needs) but also by example.

Shal


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

WRB,

Shouldn’t that be “outbound email”, as in “owner-originated”?

Er, perspective again. I meant inbound to groups.io (the entity measuring the activity).

Specifically I wanted to exclude from "activity" any of the normal group traffic or moderator notices which may continue to be delivered successfully to an owner's address regardless of whether the owner is still able to read them.

3) In the event that any owner or any moderator tagged for succession
is individually absent (as defined above) send a notification ...

In such case, or if the designated “new Owner” declines advancement,
just go to the next in line?

I was thinking of (3) as a kind of early warning system that the chain of succession may need attention. It wouldn't necessarily signify that a succession event has occurred. For example, if there were other active owners no promotion would occur and it would be up to them to decide what to do under the circumstances.

If the group had a single owner, and it was that owner who went absent, then the rules of succession would be in play and the first in line would be promoted. That person would "accept" the promotion by picking up the reins. Otherwise he/she can explicitly decline advancement by promoting someone else (mayhaps the next in line) and demoting him/herself. Or remain absent and the mechanism moves on to the next.

I don’t think a “chain of succession” is desirable. Once an owner is
replaced by someone willing and competent, after six months or a year
it should then be THEIR prerogative to designate their own successor
candidate(s).

I was thinking it was their prerogative to immediately reshape the "chain" (or even turn the mechanism off altogether) as soon as he/she is promoted. I only made the mechanism capable of chaining in case the immediate successor also went absent (pre- or post-promotion).

The perpetual “Con" of learning from experience is that the exam comes
before the knowledge ;<)

Too true. Which is why a stint as an active moderator before being promoted to Owner is a useful practice. That's part of why I proposed a mechanism that only applies to moderators in the chain of succession.

o Doesn't provide for alternate outcomes (group locked or deleted).

Offer the latter [two] as optional checkboxes?

It could be done, particularly easy if the controls are aggregated into a single tab in the Settings page. I forgot "remove everyone" from that list.

Shal



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

WRB,

Moderator opinions have, in my opinion, unduly discouraged earlier
discussions on this subject. Shouldn’t they encourage legitimate
discussions rather than discourage them?

It is unnecessary, and unwise, to assume suppression by the moderators when what you really face is a difference of opinion with an individual member (who happens to be a moderator). Assuming an adversarial stance is not conducive to an open conversation about the issues.

We try to ensure that postings we make as individual members are signed only with our names, and when speaking as "the moderators" (which is quite rare, on-list) are signed with our title as well.

Shal
GMF Founder



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

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 04:24 PM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:

You’re “...just not seeing a problem here…” because FOR YOU with YOUR group’s resources, it’s NOT a problem. ?With all due respect, that is no reason to dismiss out of hand the fact that this IS A PROBLEM for some owners and insuring continuity in case of their death or disability.

I'm not dismissing them out of hand.? Please explain in detail why you can't use the existing features.? (Have you tried them?)? I'd really like to understand why making changes would improve things.? My groups have no more resources than any other group and will survive fine, even if I don't appoint a co-owner, since the moderator(s) can carry on.

Duane
--
The official Groups.io user documentation is in the Groups.io Help Center.
GMF's Unofficial Help Wiki: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:24 PM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:

Duane:

?

You’re “...just not seeing a problem here…” because FOR YOU with YOUR group’s resources, it’s NOT a problem.

I'm with Duane on this one. If an owner wants a group to continue if they're no longer around then they should assign a co-owner or make arrangements for ownership credentials to be transferred. If they don't want to do that it's up to them.? if you're in a group where you feel this is necessary but not happening, start a new group and control it yourself.

Andy

From: Shal Farley <shals2nd@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 09:06:11 CET

We will need to take this to beta , in due time when Mark isn't too busy

1) I think it has had a round or two there, and 2) Mark will never be not too busy. ;-)

yeah, but if we refine the proposal here we may prevent a huge thread on <beta>

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, ...

I think we need to be able to propose something that > works without intervention by Groups.io support.

I don't think that it's possible to make that "watertight"

But you got me thinking...
What about:
1) Add an "Owner Succession" panel to each moderator's page, just below the Moderator Permissions panel.

Sure

This panel would be accessible
only by owners, not by any moderators.
2) In this panel place a checkbox for "Promote this moderator to owner in the event of absence of any owner.

I'm missing an adjective before "absence".. maybe "longterm" or "permanent"

maybe make it possible to appoint a MEMBER to take over

Place a second control to define
how long an absence triggers succession.
For this purpose I'd define absence as being no activity by any owner's account (either web activity or inbound email).

delete the word "inbound"

3) In the event that any owner or any moderator tagged for succession is individually absent (as defined above) send a notification (Web/Email) to all Owners indicating who is absent and that the chain of succession may need review.

first email the absent owner, if (s)he doesn't react, notify the moderator(s) or spare owner

Pros:
o Covers both single owner or multiple owner initial conditions.

What problem is there to be solved when you have multiple owners?

o Allows the owner(s) to establish a chain of succession (first Alice, then Bob, then Charlie, then

For a group with a few dozen members, that seems like overkill

simply by setting progressively longer times for each > moderator in the line of succession.

I have no idea what you mean here

From: txercoupemuseum.org <ercoguru@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:08:33 CET

On Jan 14, 2021, at 1:56 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

o Allows the owner(s) to establish a chain of succession (first Alice, then Bob, then Charlie, then ...) simply by setting progressively longer times for each moderator in the line of succession.

<I don’t think a “chain of succession” is desirable.

Once an owner is replaced by someone willing and > competent, after six months or a year it should then > be THEIR prerogative to designate their own successor
candidate(s).

No. When someone is promoted to owner (s)he immediately has the task of finding a spare-owner or successor - unless the group decides to disband.


groetjes/?is, Ronaldo



groetjes, Ronaldo

On 01-13-2021 17:16, ro-esp wrote:

... 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

That is not practical. My groups operated on Yahoo for years without any owner activity (a feat, unfortunately, unable to be achieved on GIO!). While not the most active, we had 3000 members, no moderation required and no problems with SPAM. Absence of owner activity is not a reliable indicator of an owner's vitality. In fact, even on GIO, all moderation/administration requirements could be performed by separate moderators without any owner activity required at all.

Validating the death of an owner, given that he/she could have lived anyplace on the world and is only identified by an email address may just be an intractable problem.

Art

Duane:

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

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

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 03:46 AM, Donald Hellen wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:16:51 -0800, "ro-esp" <ro-esp@...> wrote:

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

Better yet, appoint another owner so full group management privileges
are there for them. That is, if you can trust the person.

I don't want to invite power-games. If I (owner) die, I want the moderator to become owner and appoint a new moderator. If the moderator dies with me, I want the group to still have the ability to go on.

groetjes/?is, Ronaldo

OK, I egrep'ed those out, removed the spurious characters and submitted them in the web form.?

There were 30 of them.

Thanks for the corrections.

I suppose I should have known the '<' and '>' were literal in the name, email line format.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 03:17 PM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:

Some, if not a majority, who definitely want their group to continue incase of their disability or death have no one “groomed” for succession. ?I would go so far as to say that these owners tend to be the most “invested” in their groups, whether in time, money, or both. ?Their concerns are real and to ignore or dismiss them is most definitely incendiary. ?

?

Their subscribers ambitious and capable enough to take over should not have the option to do so before an owner or founder is ready and willing to step down. ?In most cases it’s just not possible to “know” people that well you have never met in person and probably never will.

I would think that would be the worst case for making someone the owner.? If you don't trust them as a full permission moderator, why would you trust them as owner?? You could make them a moderator in preparation, but they wouldn't have to actually do anything unless/until the owner is missing.

I have a couple of co-owners, as well as moderators, on 'my' groups.? If any of them appear to not be in sync with the group, I'd remove them, possibly replace them.? If one of the co-owners kicks me out, I can start a new group.

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing a problem here.

Duane
?
--
The official Groups.io user documentation is in the Groups.io Help Center.
GMF's Unofficial Help Wiki: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki