locked Re: orphaned group


Please.  The subject here is the ONGOING problem of "Orphaned Groups”, such groups presumably defined as no longer having a functional owner.  I suggest we need to pivot and think in terms of JUSTIFIED requests and RELEVENT objections

Those advocating for an Owner option to designate a successor “pre-need” have repeatedly explained their RELEVENT objection to the present necessity to create ANOTHER Owner who would then immediately have EQUAL power.  

Because of this clearly VALID concern certain Owners refuse, AS IS THEIR RIGHT, to appoint potentially challenging co-owners.  Creating another concurrent and unneeded “Owner” is more likely to create a NEW PROBLEM, given the unpredictability of human nature, than to resolve the clear and present one.  

If an Owner WANTS another owner, they have that choice.  No one is proposing to take that away.  Until the above concern is meaningfully addressed, the mere passage of time will orphaned more groups.  

The status quo should be unacceptable because it is in NO ONE'S best interest(s). In this case, “good enough” is clearly NOT “good enough” for those with a  dog in the fight.

All the grumbling about unrelated and unsubstantiated “straw man” issues such as “complexity” or “trusting others” in no manner address or resolve this present and ongoing deficiency in available OWNER choices.  If their “choice of members” could resolve it, no group would need moderators.

In any debate, respect should be a “given”.  To suggest or advocate within GMF that a current SOLE Owner has no NEED to designate a successor is disrespectful in the extreme.  For others to ring the same bell repeatedly is to add insult to injury.  Who guards the guardians here???

That should be wayyy above the pay grade of ANYONE in GMF or Groups.io.



On Nov 14, 2021, at 8:38 PM, Ken Schweizer <kensch888@...> wrote:

Although "our" group will not be directly affected if this idea is implemented, but the complexity of GROUPS.IO's software will become more complex to fix an issue most "owners" have already fixed by having two or more "co-owners".  Adding unnecessary complexity to anything rarely if ever is looked back on as a good decision.

If an owner is concerned about a co-owner deleting him/her there seems to be a far bigger problem, the choice of members.
Ken S.
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." God
From: GroupManagersForum@groups.io [mailto:GroupManagersForum@groups.io] On Behalf Of Duane
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2021 7:19 PM
To: GroupManagersForum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [GMF] orphaned group
On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 06:58 PM, Michael Pavan wrote:
I still do not understand why anyone who would be unaffected should object.

GMF is for discussion, so both sides are allowed (within reason.)  I don't see any reason the existing mechanism doesn't or won't work.  I brought groups over here from YG, but the original groups stayed there.  These aren't MY groups, they belong to the members.  I just found a home for them, fortunately, well ahead of the loss of YG.  I do know many groups that were brought over, but most, if not all, of them have got several owners/mods to carry on.  (I can't think of one off-hand that doesn't.)

My suggestion is for you (or anyone that feels the same) to make your suggestion on the beta group if you don't want any objections voiced.  Mark has asked, and incorporated into the guidelines, "Avoid posting negative replies such as “I wouldn’t use this” or “I don’t see how that’d be useful” or “That would cause a mess,” etc., which are not helpful to anyone."  He has also added, "include as much detail as possible that explains why you think the feature is needed or what problem it would solve" for suggestions, so a very detailed description is more apt to be noticed.


Join GroupManagersForum@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.