Feature update: new group privacy settings

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.