Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Wiki Access Control Lists

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>
  • To: SM-Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Wiki Access Control Lists
  • Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:27:19 -0600

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 |
==================================================================

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page