[aardvarkr]

In that case it’s a moot point, but on the other hand we have had so many past examples of community “owners” shutting down their community out of spite. The community needs to be able to control their own destiny with or without the founder.

[jfoster]

I've never been an admin of any meetup group, but I have been an attendee of many. As an attendee, I'm almost never caring who the group owner is, and it certainly doesn't play a role in whether I decide to join the group or not.

As you suggest, I think the community belongs to the community.

[agileAlligator]

I think there needs to be some sort of a middle ground. Maybe the organizer can call a vote, and if a certain quorum is met the community can be dissolved.

[rhodorhoades]

Intentionally dissolving a community seems pointless. If a community wants to be dissolved people just… stop.

[ghaff]

I'm not sure even that necessarily works. Say the majority of the group wants to move to a new platform. Someone else--perhaps in the minority--wants to keep the group going on meetup.