Public SourceMage Discussion List

[David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>]

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