I like the direction this is going!

I'm unsure about some of the language - 'publicised' doesn't feel super clear to me.

I've deleted a couple of comments and updated the context so it is not confusing.

For completeness, here's how the subgroup form looks when the parent is listed.

Would love to hear from e.g. @seantilleycommunit and @alanna and @vivienmaidabornloo if these mockups feel like an improvement on the current settings?

Where are things "listed"? If I didn't know about the public groups directory, which for example a Pathways user wouldn't really be interested in, I would assume that "listed" would imply visible to people at pathways. This is going to be especially true if we have branded Loomio's - people will assume it refers to within their space.

How about the option reads "include in the public Loomio groups directory" or "Not public, membership by invitation only".

And there's another level of complexity because if I am imagining myself as a Pathways user, I might want a group that can have public to pathways users discussions as we all private group members only can see discussions. If I click "unlisted" and then create a public discussion, is that what I get?

Maybe in order to understand these options I'd need to description of what each possible combination leads to.

Thanks @alanna. Listed includes being indexed by search engines. It means your group is findable on the internet.

Unlisted, public discussions are essentially "anyone with link"

I might want a group that can have public to pathways users

This is different use of the term public.. which you're allowed to do, I guess.. but it sure highlights how hard this job is. In this case I think you mean:

I might want a a group that grants access to pathways users.

In which case I would suggest to you as a user, that you create a subgroup within pathways and check the "Pathways members can see private discussions" checkbox.

This is a public group. should we be discussing specific non-public groups in here? @robertguthrie @alanna

@alanna before I had "Listed" there was "findable" @richarddbartlett told me that "findable" is not a word - Which seems like a mistake on behalf of Oxford.

Do you think it would be worth it to invent a new word?

Finable and Joinable
People can find your group on the internet and request to join it

Hidden and Invite only
We will hide your group from search engines and membership is by invitation only.

hidden and invite only

Ignore the last line

@jessedoud yep. I reckon it's ok in it's current from. Afterall we mention them on the frontpage.

I think you're right. For future engagement I think I would be more apt to jump in this discussion if it were kept a bit more in the abstract. I'm not super comfy talking about designing for a pathways user, but would be fine about talking about a business org user, or using a persona.

I feel like it would be nice to have an additional option to allow anyone to join the sub-group without the need for approval, especially if they're already a member of the parent group.

We have a lot of sub-groups in Diaspora and it gets a little tedious to have to approve everyone that wants to join in.

Thanks @seantilleycommunit.

@benjaminknightloom and I just had a skype about this stuff and we discovered that we're still combining two settings in one here. (The 'visibility' and how people can join) From there I realised that this 'join freely' option was not on the table and I'm going to mock it up and try to put it in.

Thanks for your input!

@seantilleycommunit would you please have a look at the latest iteration and give feedback?

https://loomio.mybalsamiq.com/projects/privacy/Edit%20group%20round%20500

We now have an "Anyone can join" option .. meaning people can join freely and discussions are always public.

@seantilleycommunit there were a few things that were confusing/incorrect in the mockup above (especially the sticky notes). i've just fixed it all up though, so if you were confused before, try again and it should make sense. :)

I think there probably needs some further clarification on what "Anyone can see the group" means. Getting to that setting for the first time I wouldn't know what to expect.

Does it mean the group's homepage (i.e with information about the group), or is it just listed as a link in a public directory of groups, or does it mean they can see the home page with information and links to discussion.

Thanks for the feedback Neil.
We're talking about the group profile page and any public discussions.

Do you have any suggestions for how we might better communicate this? We're in final stages of releasing this feature now.

@robertguthrie what do you think of something along the lines of what I've written below? And also moving the "discussion privacy" section to right underneath "finding the group" since they are both related to privacy.

Finding the group

• Anyone can see the group (it's name and who's in it)
• Only members can see the group.

Discussion privacy

• Only allow public discussions (visible to anyone)
• Allow public and private discussions
• Only allow private discussions (visible to group members)

Too wordy?

Does not seem tooo wordy. I'm happy to use that as a starting iteration. Thanks @jonlemmon.

@robertguthrie cool. Here's a slight tweak on the wording which I think might be easier to read?

Discussion Privacy

• Allow public discussions only (visible to anyone)
• Allow public and private discussions
• Allow private discussions only (visible only to group members)

@neilmorris how's all the above wording look to you?

@jonlemmon would it be possible to combine your suggestion with what @alanna put forward in *More indepth Sub-Group permissions * (public viewing/private voting)?
Maybe as:
Allow public discussions and private discussions/voting

@stevecoffman Right now the privacy stuff is 95% done and we're working on minor language tweeks. Subgroup of voters is another iteration.

@jonlemmon @robertguthrie I wonder whether the public discussion option needs to be split into public discussions which are searchable in search engines and those which can be seen by members who log into the loomio installation.

@neilmorris - that sounds like a private discussion to me. You can have groups with public and private discussions. Or you can make a subgroup with private only discussions.

Are there any differences between what you're describing and a private discussion?

@robertguthrie - there is a slight difference. One is public, as in searchable on the WWW, the other would be searchable to people who log in to the Loomio website i.e semi-public but because you have to log in to the site not searchable through public search engines. This option to me is quite different from having a private discussion.

To me it's actually the same as a private discussion. I can't technically see the difference.

Hrrmm.. Sorry that seems a bit blunt. At this stage I see there is a slight difference but I think I'll run with how we have it because it's so far along and the difference is so slight, and potentially confusing or difficult to communicate to the user.

Happy to review later @ne

Hey folks what do you think of the language in this version? Is it clear? Could it be clearer?

@seantilleycommunit @joshuavial @alanna @jessedoud

Only comment would be under "How do People Join". I'd go with something like....

• Open Group - anyone can join, no approval required
• By Request - new members need to be approved
• Invitation Only - new members must be invited to join

@richarddbartlett not sure how much feedback you're looking for, but if you want more I'd suggest raising a proposal like "the new groups settings language makes sense to me" - if you do that, update the context panel first.

Wow, looking great!
Thinking it would be nice to add some reassurance so users know that these options can be changed in the future. And labels and placeholders on the textareas could use a polish.
As is, to me this looks like a clear improvement.

small comment really but I just read this about where best to put placeholder text/ tips, i.e. outside of the form field:
http://goo.gl/QKt7xq

er, more cool stuff on placeholders here
http://blog.circleci.com/adaptive-placeholders/

(the guys at http://www.camplight.net/ must be into this stuff at the mo because both links are from their facebook page https://www.facebook.com/camplight )

I really like @alanna's suggestion about Open group, By request, and Invitation only - feels like a really clear articulation of the 3 options (and gives each a label to make it instantly understandable).

Also love @jessedoud 's suggestion about making it clear to people that these settings can be changed.

This is awesome work @robertguthrie , massive improvement!!

Plus I love hacking the proposal to engage us all in the process :)

It's a little bit difficult for me to answer because my english is not very good.
It'll be usefull and maybe interesting to make traductions, and to verify them if people are able and have time to do it.

Thanks for Loomio it's realy a good way for me to take decision after proposition.

See vote statement. Looks really good though. :)

here's my go :

Thanks a lot for this button Traduction
So quickly... it's help me already even if the traduction is not so good, specialy when we work on detaiIs.
Yo ;.)

Hey folks we deployed these changes last night - have a play and let us know if you have any feedback :)

I think it'd be better if you could set it so only group coordinators have the option to post public posts. When you select the option for a posts privacy to be either set public or private.

Interesting. What do you think @robertguthrie?

Or at least have that as an option for more privacy concerned groups.

@matthewnholt that's pretty interesting. It could be added quite easily. Have a look at the group settings page today, it's changed a bit more. You could imagine having a "Start public discussions" checkbox in the "members can" section.

I wonder if you would just have a "start discussions" option. So for a particular group only admins can start discussions. Members could still start discussions in subgroups if you wanted. That seems like a slightly simpler setting - would that be satisfactory? I like it because it sits along side a "members can start proposals" setting.

@richarddbartlett