Ticket #9312 (closed PLIP: duplicate)

Opened 7 years ago

Last modified 6 years ago

New roles : Webmaster/site administrator and novice users

Reported by: glenfant Owned by:
Priority: minor Milestone: 4.0
Component: General Version:
Keywords: Cc: plip-advisories@…, grahamperrin@…, servilio

Description

All is said in PLIPs 248, 249 and 250.

 http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/248 ,  http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/249 ,  http://plone.org/products/plone/roadmap/250

A site administrator can do almost what a Manager can do except harmful actions (add/remove extensions, ZMI, ...) or stuffs that require technical skills (text formatting, content rules, ...).

A novice user has nearly no Plone skills can just add and edit content (no "sharings", copy/cut/paste, ...)

Change History

comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by alecm

The PLIP 248 aspects are interesting and should be fairly simple to implement. They appear to be a soft prerequisite for PLIP 249.

I presume, judging by 249 and 250, that this is essentially a resubmission of PLIP 249. This seems like a very good idea, but it will be fairly difficult to implement cleanly. Is someone prepared to take the technical lead on this PLIP? If so, then:

+1

comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by pupq

YES!

Just having a role name to hang this stuff will be extremely helpful. I've been preaching to classes about a "Power User" role for years ;)

comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by regebro

I find "Novice user" a bad and slightly degrading name for that role. With a better name I would be +-0 on this, but the name Novice User I'm -lots.

comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by glenfant

Sorry for the "novice" people for this ;)

"Novice" comes from the french language and applies to a person new or inexperienced in a field or situation. This is not degrading. Everybody, including you and me, has been and will be a novice in lots of situations. More specifically in our job that requires to learn nearly continuously new technologies.

Focusing back to the PLIP, the "novice user" is less essential IMHO thant the Administrator role, counting back the hughe amount of hours spent to repair the disasters caused by "Managers" who clicked at the bad place in a control panel ;)

comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by erikrose

Clearing Owner field of 4.0 PLIPs so we can use it to mean "implementor". (Many of these owners were automatically assigned from choosing a Component that had a default owner.)

comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by smcmahon

  • Cc plip-advisories@… added

comment:7 Changed 7 years ago by MatthewWilkes

It's been 9 days since alecm asked if anyone was willing to take on the tech lead and nobody made themselves known. This isn't written as a PLIP, it has no discussions of risks, merely references some old, unfinished PLIPs.

FWT Vote: -1, this is incomplete, I'd love to reconsider for 5.0

comment:8 Changed 7 years ago by alecm

Since there appears to be no implementer for this PLIP.

My FWT vote: -1

comment:9 Changed 7 years ago by rossp

FWT vote: -1. No implementor. Would also need to have the various referenced PLIPs stitched together into one PLIP here for review.

comment:10 Changed 7 years ago by davisagli

FWT vote: +0. My understanding is that during this phase I am to vote based on whether the idea expressed in a PLIP is something we want in core, not based on whether it has an owner or whether I think it can actually be accomplished in the given timeline. Of course this is going nowhere without someone to carry it forward, but I would hate to have to exclude this from 4.0 if someone does implement it well.

I do really want these additional roles and the cleanup of permissions, however I do think the risks are greater than have been discussed so far. e.g. what are the implications for existing custom workflows, etc.

comment:11 Changed 7 years ago by raphael

FWT vote: +1

Note that this is about the idea and scope, not the implementation. If no one does it - OK, non issue. If someone submits an implementation, however, we can still say no if it's considered too risky but if it's done right we can only win. I simply don't want to signal too much stop energy early on here.

comment:12 Changed 7 years ago by calvinhp

FWT Vote: -1 please write up a proper plip here to include all the linked to ideas and also include an implementor. I'd be inclined to change my vote with more preparation.

comment:13 Changed 7 years ago by limi

Has anyone actually tried contacting glenfant directly? He might not be getting these updates, you know. :)

comment:14 Changed 7 years ago by esteele

  • Milestone changed from 4.0 to 5.0

Rejected for Plone 4.0 by FWT vote. Bumping to 5.0, since there seems to be general support for the idea, but no implementer.

comment:15 follow-up: ↓ 16 Changed 7 years ago by esteele

Is there a possiblility of implementing this is a 4.x. What BBB considerations are there?

comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 15 Changed 7 years ago by davisagli

Replying to esteele:

Is there a possiblility of implementing this is a 4.x. What BBB considerations are there?

I think the main BBB consideration affecting whether this could be accepted for 4.x is whether or not it's possible to write a sane migration to:

  • add reasonable defaults for the new control-panel-related permissions to the existing roles
  • add any necessary management of the new roles to the built-in workflows

The change would potentially also require adjustment of the rolemap for custom roles and custom workflows in add-on packages.

comment:17 Changed 6 years ago by limi

  • Milestone changed from 5.0 to 4.x

comment:18 Changed 6 years ago by limi

  • Component changed from Unknown to Infrastructure

comment:19 Changed 6 years ago by grahamperrin

  • Cc grahamperrin@… added

comment:20 Changed 6 years ago by servilio

  • Cc servilio added

comment:21 Changed 6 years ago by davisagli

  • Status changed from new to closed
  • Resolution set to duplicate

Closing as a duplicate of #9578

comment:22 Changed 6 years ago by hannosch

  • Milestone changed from 4.x to 4.0

comment:23 Changed 4 years ago by davisagli

  • Component changed from Infrastructure to General
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.