On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Jim Grisanzio <Jim.Grisanzio at sun.com> wrote: > Peter Tribble wrote: >> >> As I understand it, each community group has a matching electorate >> collective. > > Yes. >> >> What's the rule for granting write access to the data in those >> electorate collectives? > > Facilitators would be most efficient mechanism to handle this data entry > task for their CGs.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. >> Presumably *not* the same as for the auth data in the regular collective. > > Correct. Leaders would not have access to the Electorate data. Only > Facilitators. My recollection here is that auth/the new website didn't model the facilitator role. I think you've answered the primary question though - in the same way that the electorate data is distinct from the regular CG data, edit access is also distinct. >> I think the scheme is fine; my concern would be ensuring that only >> "approved" >> users (presumably the facilitators would be) can edit the data - > > The constitution says that the OGB appoints the CG Facilitators, so, > presumably, they would be approved by the board. As facilitators; the role as currently used is a communication conduit, adding grant editing would be an extension that may or may not be a good thing. >> and presumably >> the OGB secretary would get update access to everything, just in case a >> facilitator is unavailable for whatever reason. > > We could consider granting the OGB secretary access to the individual > Electorates as an RFE for next year. In the meantime, if a Facilitator is > not available to enter the data, we can make the update manually on our end > until the OGB appoints a new Facilitator or the current Facilitator becomes > available. I would expect that we would start out with the OGB secretary being the only person with admin rights; they could then grant edit rights to others. (One thing that would be nice is the ability to give someone edit rights [or even admin rights] to *all* electorate collectives. Would make the transfer to a new secretary, or a temporary standin, or a membership committee, much easier.) >> And presumably there's a log >> that's accessible so that we can review who's done what. > > A log can be provided, but as I explained earlier the relationships data > will be displayed in the open shortly. So, that would include CG-P sponsor > relationships, Contributors, Core Contributors, etc. At a minimum, a change history is necessary. You can't see what actions have been taken without it. I don't want to have to visit every electorate collective page and manually try and work out who's been added in the last week. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
