On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Jim Grisanzio <[email protected]> wrote: > When we deployed Auth in August, we had implemented a system > where Core Contributors would have website edit privileges in their > Community Groups on the new XWiki site. > However, the OGB objected.
A more accurate response would have said that the OGB objected to a poor implementation that didn't meet the needs of the community. The implementation Jim mentioned required that you already be a [Core] Contributor in order to edit web pages. The OGB was concerned that there was no way for Participants to be given website edit abilities or to restrict the rights to a subset of a group's [Core] Contributors. This "a participant wants to start contributing by editing the website, so you must make them a Contributor first" scenario ran counter to the constitution which says that making someone a Contributor is an acknowledgment that they have /already/ made a significant contribution - it put the cart before the horse, so to speak. We also found that some communities with lots of C's and CC's wanted to limit the number of people with edit rights to those on a community "editorial team". The OGB's conclusion was that in order to address the above concerns, the editorial authorization mechanism needed to be logically distinct from the C/CC community governance roles: Being an editor is not an identity relationship based on Contributor or Core Contributor status. The OGB has no problem with [Core] Contributors having website edit privileges in their Community Groups on the new XWiki site. The mechanism that implements "edit privileges", however, must allow individual groups to choose to limit the privilege to a subset of their C/CCs and/or include people who are simply Participants. -John _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
