Might help with replication
In the interests of
a) tidying up the UI & usability
b) reducing data in the hope of reducing cache generation load
I am generating lists of groups in CiviCRM. I think I probably need to get the DB restored from live to staging to do the smart groups but here is a list of the 230 non-smart groups
I suspect about 10% are useful & I suggest that we approach this by people who might have groups they care about taking a look & highlighting any rows that we should KEEP.
@MBeat33 , @LeanneS @NNichols @CCogdill_WMF & @Ejegg @DStrine @CaitVirtue @K4-713 please comment back on here if you are satisfied that all the groups that contain useful information & should be kept are highlighted. This list does NOT include smart groups so that's why you won't see them.
I couldn't ping Danny?
Sent email to DS/ MG/FT-tech
Both as a general cleanup and in order to see if it helps performance issues I’m looking at groups in CiviCRM I have compiled a list of groups in CiviCRM which I’d like you to review & identify which ones you wish to keep / feel comfortable removing.
The ones marked ‘Strongly Propose Delete’ (also highlighted in red) are either broken or had specific performance issues and I would like to remove them as a priority. I have marked the ones I know the usage of as ‘Keep’ and the one’s I’m pretty sure Major gifts use as ‘Propose Keep’.
In deciding whether to keep groups I would suggest the following considerations / criteria
- Smart groups should be kept if they are actually used & useful.
- If a smart group ‘might one day be useful’ then it may be better just to do the search when you need to.
- The lower the group id the earlier it was created (and more likely they are no longer used)
- any group created since Nov 2016 will have an owner
- Non smart groups are useful if they provide additional information about a donor that is reliable and useful - some examples
- WMF Staff/Committees/Project Contacts/Vendors/Persons of Interest/Admins on English Wikipedia were created a long time ago & do not appear to be well enough maintained to be useful
- Groups like ‘Open House 12/03/09 Attendees’ tell us the person attended an event & are likely to be useful
- Information about receiving old fundraising emails doesn’t tell us what the donor did & is not reliable enough about the emails sent to seem very useful
How to deal with this big list….
Groups created since November 2015 will have an owner. I can add an owner to groups that do not have an owner. I propose that we try to reach a point where all groups that we keep have an owner.
So, I suggest that everyone look at the list and if there are any groups that they use / see value in keeping, that don’t have owner,s they ask me to make them the owner (ditto if the owner is incorrect - ie. I propose changing the owner of groups I have created for Major Gifts from me to Leanne). Any groups with no owner, or where the owner agrees to deletion will be deleted after that. I will send around a final list of groups to be deleted before completion.
- confirm to me when you have looked at the list & are happy there are no unowned groups that you use.
- tell me which groups you wish to own.
wrt the group of wikimedia board members - there are a handful of 2009 board members in the group , but a larger number recorded as having a 'Board Member' relationship with WMF - the only one in the group I checked had both. WMF staff seem the same so I guess we should remove people who have the relationship from the groups & when empty delete the groups.