[SM-Discuss] Wiki Access Control Lists
David Kowis
dkowis at shlrm.org
Sat Mar 8 11:27:19 EST 2008
flux wrote:
> David Kowis (dkowis at shlrm.org) wrote [08.03.07 19:25]:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I've thought a bit on how to "lock down" the moderately important parts
>> of the wiki, and I've come up with the strategery on
>> http://wiki.sourcemage.org/Administrivia
>>
>> This is a Request for Comments on that plan.
>> We need to decide a few things:
>> * What pages need to be enforced?
>> * Is this overkill?
>> * Is this not enough?
>> * Who administers the groups?
>> * Do we really even care enough?
>>
>> Of course, any other ideas will be entertained ;)
>
> I'm curious as to how this is going to work. If there is a separate
> group for Lead Developers, and a component is locked for Leads only,
> that means that non-Leads (who are still developers for that particular
> component) will not be able to edit pages for that component. For
> example, if cauldron pages are locked so that Leads are the only ones
> who can write, I won't be able to edit the cauldron pages (unless I
> mysteriously become a Lead :-P).
I wasn't thinking of locking down component level pages at all. It'd be
too much management. I'm mosly concerned with project level things,
which are few and far-between. Our official documentation that details
our voting process should be one of the things that's locked down.
>
> I think it would make more sense to have components locked according to
> who works on that component, rather than leaving it up to either
> everyone can write it (dev and non-dev) or Leads only. Currently,
> BearPerson and I both edit the cauldron stuff equally, and I'm pretty
> sure he would prefer to keep it that way (so that he does less work),
> and I thought the whole point of having the ACLs in the first place was
> to ensure some sanity for the "official" pages.
>
> Perhaps just adding one additional group (Developers) would fix this,
> since developers will not go around fudging other people's pages
> (whereas spammers would be happy to). Otherwise I would suggest having
> groups according to components, if we are going to have groups at all.
Yeah I don't want to do this. That would give us yet another thing to
manage. I want to avoid that. Trying to keep it simple. Two groups for
project level stuff, or perhaps the Component Lead's goal page or something.
--
David Kowis
==================================================================
| www.ronpaul2008.com | www.sourcemage.org |
| Ron Paul for President! | SourceMage GNU/Linux |
==================================================================
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 727 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20080308/00e60f17/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the SM-Discuss
mailing list