Groups

 

The “Create Commitee” description has an ambiguity – is this about group access or group creation ??? Please specify, THANKS!

 
 

Hi.. I’d like more information about layout changing I can do on the group page.
Where can I find it?
Thank you!

 
 

how i can delete somebody from the group ?

 
 

Does anybody know how admins can delete members from a group or committee?

 
 

snaky love, The link is for creating a committee. Everyone in the existing group (rainbow) will then have access to said committee.

 
 

spleen, You can hardly change the layout currently. New stuff for that is in the pipeline but I don’t expect it to be done before summer 2013

 
 

black_cardinal, thoughtcriminal, deleting users from a group as an admin is currently being worked on.

 
 

@azul: cheers and don’t worry, it’s not really useful we ended up loving crabgrass after two years :)

 
 

Is there a way an admin can delete a group. I have created one which is now disused and is just taking up space and creating minor visual clutter from time to time…?

 
 

@Haroun: I’m not a riseup admin, though you should be able to destroy the group you belong if a “coordinating council” does not exist. Otherwise, you should ask someone from that council. At least, this worked for me.

 
 

is it posible to delete a comitee? i couldn’t find how to do that even if i belong to the coordinating council of the group. is there any way?

 
 

sorry, my question was already answered here: we.riseup.net/crabgrass/committees

 
 

Go to the member page of the group. You should appear on it and there’s a “leave organization” link on your line.

 
 

Hello.

(I’m looking for a place to post this. Suggestions about the basic structures. Please forward if this is not the right place. Thank you.)

Here are a few propositions concerning how structures are handled in crabgrass.
I have no capability to work on this and hope it could just be taken into account in further development.
I’m very sorry if this happens to be existing features. I’ve been looking around and couldn’t find them.

The main point is to allow organizations to behave like single persons.
Then to enhance security by increasing the possible degrees of invisibility.
Finally, a few cosmetic features.

A) Being part of organizations and networks only seems to be of formal interest, in some case. There isn’t much difference between being in a network after having joined it, or because being in an organization who joined it. It would be interesting to stress the difference by allowing an organization to be a singular actor — a bit like real life.

- If a user is in a network because she is part of an «member-organization» of that network, then she posts in the latter in the name of the organization. If she has joined the network for herself, then she posts as herself. Therefore, both are compatible: in case one is both single member and in an member-organization of a network, there should be a way of «being in the network» — and thus being able to post on its pages — from the organization OR from oneself (this could be either through choosing from an unfolding menu, or — more deeply — determined by the path through which one has browsed one’s way to the network (through the memeber-organization or not)).

- Of course, this would have to come with all the permissions settings inside the organization: who is allowed to post in the name of the organization, in which network, etc’.

- It should also be possible for an organization to quit a network and for a (council of) the network to exclude a group. Like for single member.

B) Just like it is not possible to send a message to someone — not a peer and not a contact — whose profile isn’t public, it shouldn’t be possible for an organization nor a network to send her an invitation.
In other word, it should’t be possible to contact a non public profile in any way.
In addition to the «peers» and «contacts» options, it would be possible to create a white list of persons and groups from who one can receive messages and invitations.
The method to get in touch — and possibly become peer, contact or member — would be to do so in real life (or through another channel) and exchange usernames; then, knowing the other person’s username, to whitelist it and doing so allowing her to see one’s profile and add it to «contacts». This would avoid having to go temporarily «public» to get in touch with someone before being «peers», or to go visible for all the peers.

C) Pages should be organized in order to be able to see at first sight how a group is structured in committees, councils, etc’. In the page list, only the name of the (group-)owner appears without distinction: all the pages are thrown together. The «home» should indicate who owns a recently modified page, what part of the organization or network it is from. The «pages» page should also make a distinction between pages that are owned by the group, or by a committee or a council of its, etc’.

 
 

Recently invites stopped working for us. Multiple attempts have been made to send invites to two people, and all spam/junk/etc. folders have been checked, but no invitation email was ever received. Someone else invited DID receive the invitation email, so it’s neither particular to one invitee nor universal. We attempted to invite one of the people to another group, in case it was a glitch with the group, and once again no invitation email was received—so it’s not particular to group. We also attempted inviting someone to the group via their crabgrass username instead of their email, but that did not work either.

Has anyone else run into this problem? And is there any way to contact riseup for help with this serious problem? It is hampering critical, time-sensitive work. Thanks in advance.

 
 

hello bhadda, that sounds a bit strange…
could it possibly be that the people you tried to invite in vain hadn’t connected their we-accounts with an e-mailaccount?
basically we is a platform on it’s own, which in the basic setting isn’t connected with any e-mailing service, only if people give their e-mail contact to we, they get updated about whats happening on the platform. invitations only work with the particular username in we and can be seen on peoples individual profiles. did this really fail too?

 
 

Thanks for responding, Murray. I’m still trying to answer your question about whether the invited we-account was or was not attached to an email account. That is a possibility, but I haven’t been able to confirm or deny yet.

Separately, though, people are supposed to be able to be invited at their email addresses before they have a we-account. Then I believe they are supposed to be prompted to create one. But those invitations directly to email addresses have also not been arriving. We’ve attempted to invite three different email addresses from two different groups.

 
 

oh, I didn’t knew this special feature until now – thank you! this is useful if it functions! maybe the mail from robots@we.riseup.net was blocked by the e-mail provider and so didn’t even reach the spamfolder?

(https://riseup.net/en/spam#blocklist-maintained-by-email-providers)

 
   

@murray, perhaps riseup blocking was part of the problem. For some reason, for one user, even inviting them at their username still did not work. But it seems to be working for everyone else we’re inviting via username instead of email. So this will work. Thanks so much for spurring us to try that solution!