boiert@boiert@socialhub.activitypub.rocks

Replying to an earlier post

The group actor itself is considered to have an admin affiliation.

I would make the case against this as follows:

The Group actor itself is not a human, nor a participant, if this clause was not there the Group Actor would need to make sure there remains at least one (human) external Actor as admin. Making group control loss a thing of the past. And voiding the need to 'log in on the server and manually edit group permissions'.

It would also open the door to having more than one admin on the group.

silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social

Replying to @⁨boiert@socialhub.activitypub.rocks⁩

Group actors should have the maximum privileges because some actions may need to be performed by a Group actor rather than an admin or moderator actor. This may be necessary to protect moderators from retaliation, for example. Another use case for this is anonymous groups where all posts are attributed to a Group actor (example: Telegram channels).

Multiple admin actors are already allowed - in this FEP and in FEP-1b12.

boiert@boiert@socialhub.activitypub.rocks

Replying to an earlier post

Then that should be a very explicit requirement for someone 'super' admin to execute. Which makes the onus rely on a server, or if done manually on someone possibly outside of the group.

To me it would make more sense when the Group Actor is know to have its limitations, so people can actually manage the reality of adversarial actions in a group. In stead of trying to fix social issues in a FEP. (something I've become intimately aware of )