Group management issue's (proposal)

Hey, post your feedback on what you think of this idea!!!

How about instead of just having two types of members to group, there would be a bigger hierarchy giving the founder of the goup sole control of it, as apposed to sharing the same amount of "power" with other officers.
The founder should also be able to set permissions to each part of the hierarchy so for example being able to set the permission to eject members, or permission to suspend members - can't think of anything else offhand but there are plenty of things.
Also i think that the founder of the group should have the ability to eject other officers (of if this take place - anyone in the hierarchy) aswell as the ability to delete the group or hand over control to another member.

btw it's proposal 107

I fully support this - only problem is, there's a couple proposals for something similar, so the votes are getting split between them.

The current structure of groups is an impediment to me owning land with them. It'd sure be nice to have my land group owned, and share the land permissions that come with that with others... while not putting my land ownership in jeoprady because of a recall election.

Prop 10, Prop 22, and Prop 107 are all asking for something very similar. Its a shame they weren't all combined into one proposal - it'd probably get a lot more attention.

(I voted for Prop 10, btw)

This proposal seems more to the point than the others that are similar. In fact I dropped my votes off of those to concentrate on this one. This is what we need. Full control to the founder. The founder formed the group for whatever purpose and should be able to maintain control over those individuals he/she has brought on board. If the members dont like the way the founder wants things done, or no longer agree with the founders ideology, they can always click the 'leave' button. ITS THE FOUNDERS GROUP. But as it stands, once the founder enlists officers, the founder is at the mercy of the majority. And if the majority decides to mutiny on the wishes of the founder, the founder is screwed. Perhaps a group is sometimes formed by a group and not an individual, then you need a way to have multiple founders of equal standing, but lets not get too convoluted just yet. Ect ect ect. Vote this one in, this is what we need here in the groups dept. The other similar proposal sounded too complicated to be practical, but hey if they can do it, the more options available the better. And there were a few people on the other threads who feared hierarchy. Pfffft, such is the nature of things.

I really would like to change these tools. I've written about them all over in bunches of threads. I have a simple list of things they need to do:

1. Create status of founding officer who has all privileges, can sell land, invite officer, dismiss officer, invite member, dismiss member, manage property (set name, URL, count prims, etc.), deed to group.

2. Create status of investment officer who has most privileges, can sell land up to the amount of tier he has put in, can invite officers, cannot dismiss officers, can invite member, can dismiss member, manage property.

3. Create status of member who can set objects, deed to group, set music/video URLs.

4. Create status of member who can set objects.

Add to this mix:

1. Right to deed land but then pull it back with notification.
2. Right to pull tier but only with 24 hour notice.
3. Complete elimination of officer recall as an automatic process that paralyzes the group. Just give groups the freedom to have votes on their own using the voting methods with the founder then able to take the will of the group and expell an offending officer.
4. Put in offline IM messaging capacity.
5. Put in a founder-status transfer capacity.


Any option we think up has to be walked through a hundred times backwards and forwards. It would be great to have a working discussion group on this to document all the bugs in group tools and the whole wish list.

For example, I'm quite aware that if I create a 24-hour tier notification system (as a togglable option) I'm hampering ease of purchases and tiering up and down to meet opportunities in the market. So that has to be approached with care.

I'm for creating a system where no treacherous officer can sell land out from under the founder or for that matter, any other officer who puts in tier or land.

I'm for a system where no rogue member can bork up the whole group with a malicious recall flip.

Rather than having the community endlessly fight over whether they essentially want a Western-style corporation with a CEO and a board of trustees, with a hiearchy of power and no one able to hobble the group, or an Eastern-style collegium with all equal (and any or all then able to hobble the group), I'd rather see LL just make two sets of group tools. The can keep the one they have for just groups without land, or groups that want to do the commune style of things. And they can make a new one that has a hiearchy.

Sounds good Prok! Havent seen you at the place lately, stop by for coffee lol.