Fedora Docs Platform - Roles

[Paul W. Frields]

On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 19:21 -0700, Jonathan Steffan wrote:
> So yes. More Plone questions. Role = User class = Group membership in
> FAS
> 
> Who are going to be our editors? Are they "gods" over content objects?
> 
> Do we have multiple level of editors or do we just say "you're on the
> team... go edit"?
> 
> Do we have multiple tiers of workflow permissions (who can move a
> document between states, for example) or do we just say "wow, you'll
> help? here are your permissions"?

Karsten had floated around an idea at some point about the following
roles:

Writer - Can create and change at least their own documents
Editor - Can create and change anyone's documents
Publisher - Can promote documents to public
Sponsor - Can give people access to one of the above roles
Administrator - obvious?

I was thinking that "Lead Writer" is also a good role, which differs
from a Writer in that a Lead Writer can grant permission for other
people to change his documents.  However, this then makes me worry about
the old "stomping grounds" problem, where there's a risk of people
becoming proprietary about "their" work.  I don't think we've really had
that problem in Docs, but it's always something one should guard against
in a FOSS project.

> >From what I've taken from MikeM we will want to require special
> permissions for users to even be able to create content, is this
> another role?
> 
> Do we need "workspaces" in the sense "create anything here, we can all
> edit it we can all see it, but the public can't"?

That would be a step up from the current Docs/Drafts space we have on
the wiki, which is viewable by everyone.  There might be some use for
this, but we should also be mindful that work that happens out of the
public eye in FOSS, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist.  I'm
not sure what the right answer is, except possibly to simply have a
namespace that's not linked from anywhere but which everyone can go to
if they want.  (I.e. "docs.fp.o/drafts" is somewhere public but we don't
link it from the front docs.fp.o page.)

> Do we lock down plone to be super secure and do very little at first
> and then open it up with new releases? (Yes, this causes me a little
> more work making sure changes are upstream compatible but i think this
> concept is worth it)

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, whether it's site
security, functionality, or what, but I think it's sometimes difficult
to close up gates after they're opened, if it turns out they really
should have been closed.  However, I think you probably want to shift
your mindset away from "causes me a little more work" and more toward
thinking that as needs come up, that's an opportunity for you to school
others in how that need ties into the system and how to make the changes
properly.  We already have learned through many hard knocks that
individuals don't scale well, and we should try and spread the work (and
pain) however possible.

> What is the state of LDAP queries to FAS?

This may be the wrong list for that question, maybe try f-websites-l?

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
           Fedora Project: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20071230/e14a8e72/attachment.sig>