Policy Proposal for Closed (by request) Groups

silverwing's picture

The Problem
We currently don't have any guidelines on when Groups should be set to "Moderated - membership requests must be approved." On our Guidelines for Forming New Drupal Groups page it just says "Almost all groups should be open. Use other choices only when there is a good reason for doing so."

We currently have about 30 groups that require approval. That's 30 groups (mostly regional) that potentially stop people from contributing for no good reason. Some organizers have created their group, set it to 'closed' and left, never to be heard from again. And some may have set their group to close simply because the option was there. Whatever the reason, a closed group without an organizer at least approving memberships doesn't serve the Drupal community at all.

The Proposals
I propose we do one of three things; either:

  1. Require any group that chooses moderator approval to have at least 3 group organizers.

  2. Require all regional groups to be open, and require working groups and universities to have at least 3 organizers.

  3. No groups are closed.

"This is where it gets complicated."
I can understand universities being for alumni/employees only. (I don't agree, but I understand.) I don't understand a working group would be members only. But I don't believe a regional group should ever be for members only.

Last September greggles did approve a group for member-only status, however, that group is now open. And the Vietnam group seems to be doing really well as a closed group. But I would say that's the exception to the rule.

Also, I picked "3" because it gives groups a harder threshold to meet, and if one organizer ungraciously leaves, there would still be 2 to pick up the slack.

(And if this seems like a repeat, it is.)

Action
The list of closed groups is in this issue. If action needs to be taken, we can work off that issue.

Comments

I can think of two situations

greggles's picture

I can think of two situations where it makes sense

  1. The Mexico group where it's basically a way to undo some group creations that probably shouldn't have happened. They don't want to delete existing groups, but also want to encourage people to only join the one main place.
  2. The case of something like the Core group where it is announcement only and no discussion happens there.

Other than that, your proposals make a ton of sense to me. I think most of these groups we could fix by just making a post into them and saying "did you really want this to be closed? It's against the spirit of the site so we'll open it up if you don't respond within 2 weeks."

We don't support "intranet"

pwolanin's picture

We don't support "intranet" groups for e.g. a single company or institution. So, I would suggest we make all groups open and only allow site admins to make them closed or moderated in special cases.

This would probably need a little hack to hide that option on the group creation form.

I like the idea of hiding the

greggles's picture

I like the idea of hiding the option (maybe just disabling it and explaining it?) unless someone is a g.d.o admin. Probably the majority of these are by mistake.

Maintenance

Group organizers

Group categories

Group notifications

This group offers an RSS feed. Or subscribe to these personalized, sitewide feeds: