This is a duplicate of this: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/206515/

Support, but I have a few questions. If you are inactive and not using scratch anymore, and everyone likes your studio, how would the owner (the inactive person) give up his or her title if they are inactive? Also, wouldn't this can lead to wars in the comments about who can be owner first?

But other than that, this sounds like a good idea!

Thank you for reopening this!

I support this suggestion. Now that managers have restrictions, I think its absolutely necessary. Studios are an integral part of scratch. Scratch just hit 3 million studios recently and that number is huge in my opinion. Its always great to see studio improvements like this being made

But these manager limits pose a problem: In case the the studio owner goes inactive, the studio wont be able to edit the description and other studio info. This might even prevent some users from leaving scratch! They might feel this as “a responsibility”. If the owner goes inactive like that, then the studio members will likely create a new one. This just creates new unwanted studios for no reason.

There would be no consistency and well known studios will just fade out of existence. Every day, These well known studios motivate thousands of learning scratchers to create more. Studios like this and this are great examples. Quoting this topic by the Scratch Team, "[studios should provide] an interesting prompt that inspires Scratchers to be creative and make projects“. This is exactly the purpose of studios. But it is also important to note that many people might care about the description too and may finally abandon the studio if they don't have basic control over it. Even if a new one is created, it wont be that popular as the old one was.

I perfectly understand why managers' powers were limited – to prevent studio raids, manager chats, etc. But that doesn't mean every studio with a good intention should die. Studios can go on under new owners, but with the same existing restrictions on managers. I also think it is a good idea to limit how often these ”owner changes" can happen (otherwise, the entire limitation would have no effect).

Za-Chary wrote:

Support.

Suppose you want to leave a studio that you made, but it's super popular, so you don't want to just delete it. There's nothing you can really do. Your suggestion would allow you to effectively leave the studio without deleting it.

However, I think it must be so that there's only one owner at any given time. Also, only the current owner can change who the owner is, with permission from the other Scratcher.

Well a Scratch team member supported this two years ago, hopefully that is still the case, because with the new restrictions on managers something like this is imperative.

bump

I support this suggestion. If a manger is planning to leave scratch, or isn't interested in a studio anymore, they can just make another manager owner.

Support! I disagree with @Za-Chary's suggestion, though.

Galaxia_TheWolf684 wrote:

So, I was thinking that, maybe, if you are the owner of a studio, you have the ability to give up your role as owner and make someone else the owner of the studio?

Za-Chary wrote:

Support.

Suppose you want to leave a studio that you made, but it's super popular, so you don't want to just delete it. There's nothing you can really do. Your suggestion would allow you to effectively leave the studio without deleting it.

However, I think it must be so that there's only one owner at any given time. Also, only the current owner can change who the owner is, with permission from the other Scratcher.

Have you retired from scratch or something? Why are you supporting? ST members add things, not support things. (to Za-chary)
However…
OMEGA SUPPORT!!!!!!! because it's super useful

PenguinLover1123 wrote:

Have you retired from scratch or something? Why are you supporting? ST members add things, not support things. (to Za-chary)

1) I don't think Za-Chary was a Scratch Team member when he said that.
2) He is supporting because he thinks the idea is great and is good for the Scratch community.
3) ST members can support suggestions

Edit: Beaten to it

I agree so much. Especially if this horrible update is going to stay around.
Here's what I suggest.
There should be a way to switch the owner. This would only be done by the current owner, and it would be final. It would be nice if it was done via invites. When you are invited to a studio, you get a message saying ‘@example has invited you to *studio name*. Visit the curator tab to accept.’ I think switching owners should only be done with an invite from current owner to the possible new owner. (The purpose of this would be only having a new owner that accepts being the owner.) For the current owner to send the invite, they should have to enter their account password as to not accidentally do this. Also, it should be considered that the current owner only be able to try to switch ownership with a manager or curator of that studio. This idea would also work when switching accounts, changing ownership from old account to new account.

PenguinLover1123 wrote:

Galaxia_TheWolf684 wrote:

So, I was thinking that, maybe, if you are the owner of a studio, you have the ability to give up your role as owner and make someone else the owner of the studio?

Za-Chary wrote:

Support.

Suppose you want to leave a studio that you made, but it's super popular, so you don't want to just delete it. There's nothing you can really do. Your suggestion would allow you to effectively leave the studio without deleting it.

However, I think it must be so that there's only one owner at any given time. Also, only the current owner can change who the owner is, with permission from the other Scratcher.

Have you retired from scratch or something? Why are you supporting? ST members add things, not support things. (to Za-chary)
However…
OMEGA SUPPORT!!!!!!! because it's super useful

He wasn't a ST member then.

I SUPPORT! Especially with this painful update around.

This feature would be very helpful; I wish we’d had it before.

I think that in all cases, the nominated heir must accept an invitation for the transfer to occur; this prevents the possibility of making offensive changes to the studio and then transferring to a target who then gets reported.

Ideally, the owner would be able to appoint n heir in advance, just in case. Then, if they delete their account or become inactive on Scratch for a set period of time - say, a month? - an invitation to take over is sent to the appointed heir, or, if no heir was selected:

1004587 wrote:

TheRealNetherBefore wrote:

Support for reasons above. I also think that in the case of a deleted account, ownership should be assigned to one of the managers, though I don't know what order it should do that in. Maybe the user must specify when deleting?

Perhaps if that was the case, it'd go to the manager/curator who checks on the studio the most.

We could throw in a co-owner system for that…

I don’t think it should necessarily be the very most active curator. The most active is not necessarily the most responsible, and curators remain unpromoted curators for a reason. I would recommend that the default heir be the oldest manager who still has recent activity in the studio, as their presence after such a long time is fairly good evidence of their dedication to the studio.

About co-ownership… the single-ownership system makes it easier and more reasonable for ST to hold someone accountable for everything that they see. Thanks to the new manager limitations and single ownership, no one can say “It’s not my fault my studio has in the description, someone else wrote it without my permission!” I suspect this is why we’re not getting our managing back.

make it so the st can transfer ownership to a known head manager.

OwOmasterlunarae wrote:

make it so the st can transfer ownership to a known head manager.

Given how many studios have no active owner, I doubt ST want to do this manually.

I think this is already being considered.
Source

We hear your concerns about studio manager permissions and what happens if a studio owner is no longer active or interested in the studio they created. We’ve begun working on some ideas to address studio ownership transfers and will share more details about that with you in the future, so stay tuned!

PenguinLover1123 wrote:

Have you retired from scratch or something? Why are you supporting? ST members add things, not support things. (to Za-chary)

Maybe he wasn't a ST member when he made that reply?

Za-Chary wrote:

Suppose you want to leave a studio that you made, but it's super popular, so you don't want to just delete it. There's nothing you can really do. Your suggestion would allow you to effectively leave the studio without deleting it.

Yes, and also help in transferring ownership if the owner is inactive. Support for all the reasons stated above.

SonicFanX123_321 wrote:

Maybe he wasn't a ST member when he made that reply?

Yep, he (Za-Chary*) only became one in 2019.