Re: Members who have not reverified (still RI status) removal update
On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 08:33 AM, Mike Hanauer wrote:
But, perhaps the bottom line for me is that I like being able to see past members, which would include RI and Bounced, although perhaps the ability to see them explicitly as past members would be helpful to understanding.
On paid groups, you can see a list of Past Members.? I don't think Bounced and RI are considered past members unless/until they're removed from the group. Duane --
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
Happy Sunday everyone
In my groups I have 2 moderators if needed but one moderator has total access as I do as owner, in case today is my last day.
I trust the folks I place as members, isn't that what it should be about though?
Anyways, just my two cents and of course taking care of our groups to help them continue to move forward is helpful to all members.
Have a beautiful day
Sugar
“How lucky I am to have something that makes saying goodb
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] < [email protected]> On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2024 6:12 AM To: [email protected]Subject: Re: [GMF] Caution, if your group has only 1 owner And what then when the "super owner" keels over and is no more? You would then have a conventional "owner" or "owners" with the same resulting problem Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 18/02/2024 13:40, Steve Stallings wrote: One partial step could be to create a new class of "super owner" who
cannot be deleted by conventional owners. This could give original
"super owners" the confidence to appoint more conventional owners.
|
Re: Members who have not reverified (still RI status) removal update
We might be crossing paths messaging some of our subscribers, but that hopefully will mean the message will get through, if not from one owner then from another owner (although I suspect the target will neither get, read or react to them)
I do not see it in any way as fighting each other, just the opposite
If you have a second email address set up as owner (or moderator?) to receive owner messages, you will have a record by email of any changes to your subscriber lists without cluttering up your member list with people who have never confirmed or reverified
(I say a second email address as my owner address stopped getting all subscribe/unsubscribe messages a while back but the second one does)
Any NC have not confirmed their email address so won't get any group messages anyway, so if more than a few weeks since their application why keep them?
Those who have not reverified will be removed in due course anyway so will not appear in your member list soon
Blue B for bouncing can be sent a bounce probe
Red B are bounced and not receiving, again depending on how long it is or the reason for the bouncing is it worth keeping them
Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 18/02/2024 14:15, Mike Hanauer via groups.io wrote: Thanks David,
I Only just learned of the hover feature. It is helpful, but there are many reasons and I admit not understanding some of them.
But, perhaps the bottom line for me is that I like being able to see past members, which would include RI and Bounced, although perhaps the ability to see them explicitly as past members would be helpful to understanding.
One added question for anyone - are not ALL of these (RI, RS, B, b, NC) account level problems and this, in a sense, bigger than any subscription? And if so, might not a number of group owners be (unknowingly) fighting each other to resolve?
PS: by "b" i mean blue "B". I think it would be helpful to use a different character rather than just color.
AllTheBest.
? ? ~Mike
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
Duane I respectfully disagree.? The current "Solutions" are inadequate and extremely limiting.? Separation of powers and segregation of duties are established practices, and for entities like public companies, required business practices.? This current so called solution of multiple owners defeats those practices and regulations/? ? Grouys.io needs to stop treating this problem from a "hobby" standpoint and enplace policies and procedures and supporting technical solutions to accommodate the reality that not everyone wants to treat the organization of their groups as the current "existing solutions" support. I have seen other forums have internal political battles and takeovers, some justified, some not..? The decider of whether to assign co-ownership of a group is entirely the group owners, and no one else.?? I personally am owner of at least a half dozen groups.? In only one? case have I set a co-owner.? The rest are at risk if something happens to me.? Heck, currently some don't even have a second moderator..? I set them up to try to save them during? the Yahell debacle, and while they are a shadow of what they used to be,? they live on for now.?? I face this ownership at my workplace as well,? as we manage SaaS services and even though our customers are businesses,? we get cases where they "lose" the sole owner of the account.? These are paying customers and the businesses, despite their poor practices of managing those accounts, and despite use giving them "best practices" still come back needing help to fix the self inflicted problem. Example causes:
- Company hired a contractor and the contractor leaves (sometimes not amicably)? and owns the account with a personal Email - no self recovery possible.
- Business is sold and the new owners want control? - we must verify the sale was legit.
- business changes email server (URL change related to company name change)? and cannot recover the email of the owner
While some of these may not apply to Group.io owners, parallel? causes (like the demise of an Email service) can. This is a real problem and Groups.io does a disservice to every group it has attracted by not addressing it. Some of the solutions we use to address different issues/causes :
- Encourage the company/customer to re-establish the email, give it to a trusted staff member; log in and say "I forgot my password" and then add a new Email/owner.? and? deal with it
- Only works if you have access to the email
- cannot be legally? used in the EU/UK/Switzerland (GDPR privacy rules.)
- Establish the true ownership of the account/Company and hack??the account in the back end Database
- Costly in time and only one person in our company is allowed to do so. - Not desirable, but necessary at times
I think several solutions already suggested are not unreasonable for Groups.io::
- add a feature for an assigned "Inheritor"
- Add a Super admin/owner over current owner level
- have a function to reassign the group ownership on reasonable proof of the demise of the owner
Note that thee is no one "solution" ;? Groups.io needs options to deal with these things, as situations that drive the need change. The bottom line is that the status quo is not a reasonable solution, as these threads and common occurrences clearly indicate.? Saying "just do the recommended second owner" is closing eyes and ears to a real problem.
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
As far as I'm concerned, my *opinion* is that it is up to each group owner to decide whether or not he or she needs a backup co-owner. It is not up to individuals outside of the group to decide. In fact, I consider those attempts to be another case where various people have an opinion about something and wish to take steps to force other people to adhere to their opinion. I do not believe that this issue of having or not having more than one owner is a "real problem".?
It is perfectly ok to suggest methods to solve a perceived problem but, in general, it is not ok to try and force others do as one wishes them to do. I get the sense from several of the postings on this subject that others feel that they should force the rest of us to abide by their opinions.
I do my part to manage the groups of which I am a co-owner or moderator, and I personallg believe that it is good practice to have multiple co-owners both in order to share the administrative load and to guarantee to some extent the longevity of those groups. But I DO NOT believe that I should try and convince other group owners to follow those practices, nor do I believe that such action to force otgers is proper. It is solely up to them to manage their group(s) as they see fit. I'll do the same for the groups of which I am a co-owner.
I am always open to suggestions as to how I might carry out my responsibilties in life, but in the end it is my decision as to how things should be managed (in the cases where I am a co-owner of a GIO group, the decisions are made largely by concensus between the various co-owners).
Again, these are my *opinions*; I neither wish to force nor expect others to agree with them.
DaveD
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Feb 18, 2024, at 08:57, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
?On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 04:55 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
The first step is to acknowledge that it IS a PROBLEM
As I see it, the PROBLEM is that owners won't use the existing solutions or aren't aware that they can privately pass on ownership when they die.? Of all people, I learned about digital estates from my non-techy ex-wife! ;>) Duane --
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
Yahoo Groups did at one time have a provision for missing group owners. If the owner had not logged in to their Yahoo account for some period of time, group members could petition Support to create a poll in the group, asking who should be appointed the new owner.?
I used this successfully once. An attempt in a different group failed because, although the owner had stopped moderating the group, they were still signing in to Yahoo every month or two.
--Erik
No "Owner Succession" feature (a Group 'will') is a flaw that Groups.io (and YahooGroups) share(d).
|
Re: Members who have not reverified (still RI status) removal update
Thanks David,
?
I Only just learned of the hover feature. It is helpful, but there are many reasons and I admit not understanding some of them.
?
But, perhaps the bottom line for me is that I like being able to see past members, which would include RI and Bounced, although perhaps the ability to see them explicitly as past members would be helpful to understanding.
?
One added question for anyone - are not ALL of these (RI, RS, B, b, NC) account level problems and this, in a sense, bigger than any subscription? And if so, might not a number of group owners be (unknowingly) fighting each other to resolve??
?
PS: by "b" i mean blue "B". I think it would be helpful to use a different character rather than just color.
?
AllTheBest.
?
?
?
On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 02:47:19 PM EST, W David Samuelsen <sammyslc@...> wrote:
?
?
Mike, you wrote
?
"Yet, I have many more who are Bounced or Not confirmed who have been in that state for a long time in spite of my attempts."
?
Have you moved your mouse to those buttons "icons", click them and see what the message is when they pop up. You will see different reasons. The most common one - not a member of their ISP.
?
That is how I know which are no good, removed them.
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
And what then when the "super owner" keels over and is no more?
You would then have a conventional "owner" or "owners" with the same resulting problem
Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 18/02/2024 13:40, Steve Stallings wrote: One partial step could be to create a new class of "super owner" who cannot be deleted by conventional owners. This could give original "super owners" the confidence to appoint more conventional owners.
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 01:51 PM, Steve Stallings wrote:
One partial step could be to create a new class of "super owner" who cannot be deleted by conventional owners. This could give original "super owners" the confidence to appoint more conventional owners.
This seems to be another suggestion to have a technical solution to a problem that is caused by group owners not following the guidance in the manual.? If a super owner role was created you'd still end up in the same position when owners didn't use it. As Chris pointed out, the guidance in the manual is clear. Regards? Andy
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 04:55 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
The first step is to acknowledge that it IS a PROBLEM
As I see it, the PROBLEM is that owners won't use the existing solutions or aren't aware that they can privately pass on ownership when they die.? Of all people, I learned about digital estates from my non-techy ex-wife! ;>) Duane --
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
One partial step could be to create a new class of "super owner" who cannot be deleted by conventional owners. This could give original "super owners" the confidence to appoint more conventional owners.
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
Isn't the main problem here that the groups automatically are part of the owner's digital estates? It has been my understanding for many years that was the issue that Groups IO, or any other group venue, cannot work around. That's why we've set up second (and sometimes third) owners of groups I am part of.?
--
Pat P
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 10:55 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
The current manner in which GMF “moderation” acts to stifle free and active discussion of such legitimate issues has the predictable result of perpetuating the indefinite continuation of practices clearly inadequate by any reasonable definition, unreasonable and presumptively oppressive to men and women presumably possessing all right(s) of free association in these United States. ?I, for one, would like to see this reality change.
I think I would argue that the existence of this topic (and those on the same subject that have arisen in the past), and the inclusion of the post from which I have quoted rather proves the opposite of what has been asserted.? Perhaps it is necessary to restate that GMF has no formal standing and cannot implement any particular "policy" even if it wanted to. The GMF has no control over what individual group owners do, and the control that Groups.io has is only exercised in limited circumstances, and succession planning is not one of them.? That said I think it is fair to say that the clear consensus on GMF is for a group to have more than one owner. It is very much worth noting the following from the Owners Manual (my bold...):
It is good practice for a group to have at least one additional owner as a backup.
It can be found in this section of the manual.? If any group owner fails to follow this advice then the GMF and its members can hardly be held responsible. Chris
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 08:52 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
They insist that the workaround of having more than one Owner (who could delete your Group, or demote or depose you and take over your Group) is adequate and acceptable.
As a workaround, I granted my moderators all permissions, including that of appointing other moderators. So they will be able to run the group in any circumstance. I'd rather keep the Owner status, and responsability, for myself. I like the idea of a "will" feature, though. Marina
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 07:52 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
the workaround of having more than one Owner (who could delete your Group, or demote or depose you and take over your Group) is adequate and acceptable
I suggest this "workaround" actually works well for most Groups. I can't imagine many instances of malicious intent within the "mutual interest" universe of Groups.IO; I wouldn't want to be a member of a Group that was toxic or autocratic!
However, for those who do fear a take over, the solution seems (to me) quite simple: the Owner documents (in hardcopy) the access details and places in a sealed envelope with a Trusted Person. This information is documented in the (Files section) of the Group so everyone knows who to approach in the event that the Owner is no longer active. IMHO the onus should be on the (sole) Owner - not Groups.IO - to make an appropriate provision.
(I look forward to reading the counter-arguments ...)
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 09:15 PM, Frances wrote:
Yet again a group is threatened with dissolution because the sole group owner has died.
Time to do something about that now, while you can.
I've discovered recently that you can make your ownership of a group (or any other online account) part of your estate in your traditional will or as a separate digital will in some states.? That will allow you to do things as you see fit without naming another owner.? Anyone that feels they can't share ownership could use this without involving Groups.io at all.? It would be up to you to make sure the necessary information is available at the time it's needed.? You can research Digital Estate Planning for more information. Duane --
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
Frances,
I respectfully disagree. ?It is long past time for this ongoing problem to be resolved. The first step is to acknowledge that it IS a PROBLEM, most specifically a continuing one in desperate need of appropriate long term resolution. ?
The current “options” are inadequate to protect group owners who wish to protect the continuity of their group if they die or become incapacitated. ?There is simply no way to “be sure” of those one might add as owners at present. ?
We urgently need a “springing successor” option which would implement change of ownership IN THE FUTURE as unforeseen circumstance necessitates. ?It is patently imprudent to appoint one or more new Owners who instantly receive full power to replace the current serving owner AT ANY TIME irreversibly; and yet that is what is currently expected. ?There is presently NO current option that is reasonable, adequate and acceptable to all parties. ?This is illogical.
I fully understand the potential liability to should such transfer not be clear and final. ?That is precisely why the necessity and associated procedures be openly discussed and debated before being acted upon as appropriate. ?Even the federal government does not so encumber management of 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations. There is simply no credible reason for group owners here to have so little say in the orderly transfer of leadership in organizations THEY ORIGINATED OR NOW OWN. ?Precisely WHO does this present “system” serve? ?Certainly NOT the existing groups, nor their members! ? Every GROUP OWNER that brought their group to was an independent and competent adult at the time they brought them here. ?Why subject such LEADERS to misplaced paternalism and repeatedly denied the right to meaningfully discuss how and when THEIR GROUPS undergo a change of management when such becomes necessary due to unforeseeable future circumstance?
Andy argues that adoption of “...any kind of transfer option puts some responsibility onto??to verify that whatever information they are sent when a transfer of ownership is requested, is genuine.” ?Again, I respectfully disagree. ?
Currently neither has nor accepts any responsibility whatsoever when a group ceases to exist due to a lack of management succession. ?Whatever management succession procedure is adopted should require existing group ownership to provide such transfer of ownership notification as is required to reasonably and with certainty accomplish the purpose intended and to accept sole responsibility for fidelity in such agreed process. ?
Over the years banks have worked out how to transfer ownership of safe deposit boxes, accounts, etc. as necessary. ?The same procedure/language should assure here that the cost of litigation over “false information” in such transfer would remain with the individual group…not exactly a “deep pocket” in the legal sense. ?
I fail to see how any “new trails” would be blazed here so long as each such process/form required all signing parties to accept such responsibility and fully absolve of same. ?If there be legal expense involved if the drafting and adoption of same, my groups would be quite willing to pay our reasonable proportion as calculated by in order to purchase such peace of mind.
The current manner in which GMF “moderation” acts to stifle free and active discussion of such legitimate issues has the predictable result of perpetuating the indefinite continuation of practices clearly inadequate by any reasonable definition, unreasonable and presumptively oppressive to men and women presumably possessing all right(s) of free association in these United States. ?I, for one, would like to see this reality change.
Sincerely,
William R. Bayne Owner - two “free” groups
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Feb 17, 2024, at 9:15 PM, Frances < frances@...> wrote:
Yet again a group is threatened with dissolution because the sole group owner has died.
Time to do something about that now, while you can.
Find at least one other person in your group (or someone interested who would join your group) and make them owners.
Frances
--?_._,_._,_
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
I have an Assistant Administrator for our group. She is a great person and takes over when I am away from my computer for personal or business reasons.?
After talking with her, several years ago I changed the permissions on her account to be equal to mine. In the event something should happen to me, the group will continue without a hitch.
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 07:52 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
No "Owner Succession" feature (a Group 'will') is a flaw that Groups.io (and YahooGroups) share(d).
Surely the 'flaw' is with the group owner that fails to consider to the consequences for other members if they are no longer around or able to manage the group.? Having any kind of transfer option puts some responsibility onto Groups.io to verify that whatever information they are sent when a transfer of ownership is requested, is genuine.? I can image the arguments if a transfer of ownership is made and then the request is found to be based on false information. Regards Andy?
|
Locked
Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
Hello all
Wouldn't it be nice if GroupsIO had some sort of feature that an owner could set like if he/she does not log on to the Group in a period of x months or years, then moderator(s) 1 (a new status) would be automatically made owner
By its very nature, one person first creates a group (the new owner) and owners are often working in physical isolation (not a family or company), so groups are vulnerable to losing their owners and ending up without one.
Dave Neve
|
Duane
Nivard Ovington
Erikag59
Mike Hanauer
Andy Wedge
Pat Pratt
Brian Parkins
Paula K. Parker
SafeTex