Curious thought about groups people own in theory

Should a person be automatically signed into a group if they are the designated author on that group?

It doesn’t always mean “they own it” … it only means that they opened it. If they opened it for someone else or inherited it from someone, the authorId may not match.

For instance, here are the groups Mark is currently the supposed author of. Is it really true? And is it all of them?

I think this area needs some thought!


"abstract domains"
"action and will"
"cheng hsin"
"law of attraction"
"mark and tina"
"news fronts"
"project 2"
"projective geometry"
"system items"
"test and qa"
"threefold society"
"wants and needs"
"feeling domains"
"concrete domains"





  1. group ownership
  2. groupstatus
  3. open groups


Seth says
dA 2016-03-14 09:41:47 [item 20524#49311]
I added your list Seth.
thanks … yes, those are definitely the groups i have personally made.

Holmes says
Seth 2016-03-14 09:30:13 [item 20524#49307]
I believe all of those are groups that mark created.  

How can i get a list of groups that i created?

And yes,  if a person creates a new group, they should automatically have joined it.  But they can leave it if they choose. 
dA 2016-03-14 09:33:39 [item 20524#49309]
Well, they are automatically signed in at create time. But what does leaving it mean? Being signed in is just a cursory thing. It can come and go with the wind in these parts.

Having your authorId on the group is solid as a rock, but ONLY means you opened it. But, then what is leaving if your authorId is on the group?
Seth 2016-03-14 09:41:58 [item 20524#49312]
Well joining the group and leaving it seems clear enough to me.  If you have joined, then it is in your list of groups, if you have left it is gone from your list … and probably should not even appear in the news for you either.

Ownership of the group, i presume, gives you some special rights that other’s do not have.  Seems like a independent issue.   Maybe a Wizzard or a master ill create groups and then leave them and let them circulate in their own juices and doesn’t want to be annoyed with their rhetoricks.
dA 2016-03-14 09:45:26 [item 20524#49314]
Okay. But all that is kind of just the way things are. The questions are:
  1. Should the authorId listed on a group be auto signed in?
  2. How do you get a list of “your groups”? What does that mean? How is it different from groups you are “currently” signed into (which is cursory and may not always be stable)?
  3. How do you transfer group ownership? (other than the wizard API).
Seth 2016-03-14 09:49:54 [item 20524#49315]
  1. Yes, definitely – but she can leave it if she choosed.
  2. Your groups are the ones you have joined currently
  3. i am not sure that we need to do this right now – but eventually i expect that would appear as a option on the modify group setting menu for the owner only
… or at least that is my take on this right now.
dA 2016-03-14 09:59:32 [item 20524#49317]
Well, to 1., what does leaving mean if you are auto logged in? That’s the biggest part of the question.

Seems like leaving, if you opened a group, would mean putting some other authorId on it.

Don’t know what #2. joined really means. Being signed into a group is just a temporary session thing. You could get signed out if anyone changes the password. And if SeriTD is just house cleaning. Or during a software upgrade, etc. Being “signed in” is only a convenience. It is not a hard list, and really should not be either. It’s a privilege to have a password to a group and a courtesy to store that for you for a time.
Seth 2016-03-14 10:09:06 [item 20524#49320]
well joining and leaving a group is petty much well defined.   all i am saying is that if you create a new group that the system joins you the first time.  

i think putting a new author on a group  is a independent matter … just like owning it in the first place is a independant matter than joining it.  

#2 … wierd that you would say it is just a sesion thingey … which groups you are in is right there burned into your quads and should always be retored from that ever time.   i had thought that was the way it worked … or at least the way we intended it to work.  … who is having a senior moment here, you are me?

Now if you get signed out … well it should be taken away from you … taken out of your quad. 
dA 2016-03-14 10:18:04 [item 20524#49323]
I originally added the feature just as a keystroke saver when switching groups in the old way. Then the feature kind of got bludgeoned into doing more. And now it seems like authors believe it is a hard cold list of their groups … which even if it were hard and cold, it would not necessarily be “their groups”. In fact, we just don’t know yet what “a person’s groups” are. That’s my point.

We have two sort of ways of making a list, and they will not match each other at any time.
Seth 2016-03-14 10:25:54 [item 20524#49326]
well this has been a long time desired feature dating back to 2005.  An author should have a definite set of groups that they have joined … and every time they log in in a different place they should be available.   That is the way this is suppose to work.   Not some wishy washy thing.   It is permanent untill the person intenionally joins or leaves. 

Now as to it running in session and a person being kicked out of a group … well that does not happen very often … i say design it the best we can, but that feature should not prevent it working stably every time a person logs into a different devise or browser.  
dA 2016-03-14 10:31:04 [item 20524#49328]
Yes. Assuming SeriTD is told “don’t touch” the group list (right now she plays with it to her heart’s content), that still does not resolve what a persons groups are? Tiggerandhobbs is on my “groups” list, but it is not mine, author ID on it say’s it’s yours.
Seth 2016-03-14 10:37:12 [item 20524#49332]

i guess another way of saying it is that the list of bold groups here should be stable and match exactly the ones listed in my user quad.

the ones not bold … humm … i guess SeriTD is fucking wih those … at the moment i would need to read her mind.   To me they seem more like groups available to join.  if i join them, then they would become bold.
That’s mostly how it works. But think about this. Today wanted a list of “his groups” so he could go back and sign into them after SeriTD lost all that info last night.

The list I generated from SQL is not the same as the list he had before. For instance, group fbi is not on it. Both are “his groups”. And some in one of the lists are not. It’s all way to ambigious. I can’t just say “here is a list of your groups” right now.

See Also

  1. Thought Various Technical Details applying to with 1 viewings related by tag "open groups".
  2. Thought Open groups depreciated. with 1 viewings related by tag "open groups".
  3. Thought Fullly open groups with 0 viewings related by tag "open groups".
  4. Thought Suggestion for signing in to open groups with 0 viewings related by tag "open groups".
  5. Thought hmmm .... with 0 viewings related by tag "open groups".