Group membership vs. group permissions

Hey hey! Great question, love these types of scenarios to test out. Permissions can definitely be entertaining to play with!

What you are after is certainly doable if I follow correctly. I just tested this out myself on a v11 sandbox.

You are correct that you want only Partners to be actual group members, so that they alone are notified when you @ mention the group. You have the automation set up so all good on that front.

For employees role, you'll want to: Pencil > Manage Group > Permissions > Site roles > click on "Employees" role name (assuming this is what it's called) > then make sure you have at minimum the following two boxes checked for them to be able to see the group (note the group I tested was private so that I could test full strength):

With those two, employees role will be able to see the group. Check the other boxes in that permission section for the other permissions you want them to have within the group.

Hi Grant Pankonien :

I'm circling back to this question in hopes that you might be able to point me in the best direction.

We launched a Partner Group today. This is a private, listed group. As I described above, we are inviting all Partners to be members. Employees are NOT members but have the same access permissions as members.

I tested this repeatedly in our staging area, but somehow, I missed the fact that Employees, as non-members, automatically see this black banner at the bottom of their screen. "Partners requires membership for participation. Click to join." I am assuming that they see this because they technically aren't members (even though, through permissions, they can do everything members do).

I need that banner to go away. What are my options? I will say this:

• We chose a private group because we want access for partners ONLY.
• We chose a listed group so that the group is easy for partners to find. Also, the partner group is the first of many private, listed user groups we plan on launching.
• We chose to have employees NOT be members because we want to be able to @mention the group name to reach partners only.
• Same time, employees need access to everything.

Where did this decision making go wrong? Is there something we should have done instead to achieve what we're trying to do? And what do I have to do to get that banner to disappear? Any advice or resources you could throw my way would be greatly appreciated. 

Tagging Melanie Womble here, too, in hopes that she has ideas.

THANK YOU!

Jocelyn

Hi Jocelyn,

I'm afraid you've stumped me on this one. You are correct that since employees are not group members, they will see that message. I have asked the broader team for their thoughts, and will see if anyone has any good ideas here!

 , 

The dark join footer is rendered by the Group - Banner widget. As you mentioned, it is displayed because the Employees are not members. The best way to handle your usecase is by enhancing the Group - Banner widget. 

 , 

The dark join footer is rendered by the Group - Banner widget. As you mentioned, it is displayed because the Employees are not members. The best way to handle your usecase is by enhancing the Group - Banner widget. 

Thanks, B! - He means, create a copy of the widget, edit out the code that  shows the banner to join, then use that custom widget on just this page. We haven't done this before so it would need testing and the Prof Services love, but it is an option.

Grant Pankonien  and Bhargav Desai , thank you! We created a new version of Group Banner that edited out the code. It is working well. We now have that widget in our back pocket to use whenever we launch future groups. I can't thank you enough for the quick response and suggestion (and for the "developer-ese translation", Grant!)

Awesome. So glad that worked!