I'm trying to think of a use case when I wanted a PARCEL_OWNER to have privileges that the ESTATE_MANAGER did/should not have and can't think of one off the top of my head. In every scenario I can think of where I assigned an Estate Manager through the Estate tools rather than using group permissions, it was because I expected them to have MORE permissions than the parcel owners and was setting that explicitly.
Having said that, I do agree with Melanie that I would not expect a permission change on PARCEL_OWNER to affect the permissions for ESTATE_MANAGER. Generally I think of permissions inheriting "down" the hierarchy, not "up", and I'm not sure the average grid owner would expect that kind of behavior. - Chris/Fleep Chris M. Collins (SL/OS: Fleep Tuque) Center for Simulations & Virtual Environments Research (UCSIM) UCIT Instructional & Research Computing University of Cincinnati 406A Zimmer Hall 315 College Drive PO BOX 210088 Cincinnati, OH 45221-0088 [email protected] (513) 556-3018 http://ucsim.uc.edu On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Melanie <[email protected]> wrote: > Not true. > > Even in SL estate owners/managers don't have some parcel rights. If > I specify parcel owner, i expect parcel owner. Maybe a way needs to > be found to combine multiple strings, e.g. > ESTATE_MANAGER,PARCEL_OWNER. That would be acceptable. Changing the > current behavior that people already depend on to relax security is > not acceptable. It may mean that someone suddenly can do something > they could not do before and the owners may not be aware of this, > causing issues. > > Also, in case of a group owned parcel, group permissions govern what > people in the group can do. Group members are by no means owners, > often parcels are deeded only for access control but normal members > have no rights whatsoever. Giving them potentially dangerous > functions is not an option. > > On group owned parcels, those functions can be allowed either to > group owners only (the group invite functions already do this check) > or to deeded prims only. Allowing them for every member of the group > is really bad. You don't really want to have your roleplay's members > osTeleportAgent the opponents out of the fight! > > Again, relaxing existing constraints is not an option, but as you > can see above, ways can be found to define combinations of > permissions to allow more flexibility. > > Melanie > > On 13/04/2012 14:42, Oren Hurvitz wrote: > > The decision whether to allow the parcel owner to call a function or not > is > > set by whoever setup OpenSim.ini: they can choose to allow PARCEL_OWNER, > or > > only ESTATE_OWNER. If they decided to allow the PARCEL_OWNER then we > should > > also allow the estate manager/owner to call that function. In addition, > in > > the case of a group-owned parcel, all members of the group are owners. > > > > So this change doesn't allow more permissions: it would only correct the > > implementation of the existing permissions system, when PARCEL_OWNER has > > been specified. > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://opensim-dev.2196679.n2.nabble.com/Remove-check-for-IsGod-in-some-OSSL-functions-tp7462127p7462567.html > > Sent from the opensim-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensim-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
