View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0000023||WackoWiki||page rights||public||2007-08-28 00:37||2019-02-14 12:04|
|Summary||0000023: Page owned by a group|
|Description||Could it be possible that a page be owned by a group of user ?|
|Additional Information||That means :|
- each member have the same rights as owner
- each member is notified of changes on page
- the page owner drop down should list all groups I belong to (all groups for admin)
|Tags||No tags attached.|
Could you tell more about benefites this feature will bring?
Discussion part (long):
Suppose if page is OWNED by a group, it has no owner.
Owning in this context means primarily responsibility for content.
Thus owner rights does not restrict editing & commenting -- but allows owner to control content-flow for a page. And it becomes quite clear that HE (and noone except him) is the last resort of cleaniness for this particular page.
Subscription on notifies can be done using "watch" feature by each member of a group. And should be done so, i suppose. I suppose it should be hardwork to subscribe a dozens of users (a group) without their permissions.
Conclusion: I can see how "group-ownership" could hurt here:
* mass-subscription w/o ability to unsubscribe (user cannot leave group by himself)
* shared responsibility leading to individual irresponsibility for particular page content.
But I still cannot see what benefits it brings.
OK let me be more pratical. Suppose we are 2 people administrating an intranet wiki. I own all the pages I created, he owns all HIS pages.
Now for some reasons I have to deal with the enterprise pages HE created and managed. I think I cannot do some things like renaming, changing rights and so on.
In fact we have group rights for reading, writing, commenting
I'd like group rights for management.
Am I clear on the picture ?
I like the idea of group ownership. This could also be used to have an Administrators group which can also do things like rename or change ACLs on any page.
Kuso says that if we have group management for a page/branch then there should be no single "owner" for it, what happens when everyone leaves that group? I think the original creator should remain so that if the group becomes empty there is still someone responsible for the page.
Their other point about mass subscribing users to a page by adding their group as writers etc can be muted by not auto-adding each user in that group to the watch list. This might make a good pair of config options. One at the site level to be treated as the default and one for each user to overwrite the default. The idea being "Auto watch pages my group is added to?". We could have another page which lists "Pages my group is allowed to edit/view". Users could then view that to find any new pages that they might want to watch.
|2007-08-28 00:37||EoNy||New Issue|
|2007-08-28 00:37||EoNy||Note Added: 0000018|
|2007-08-28 00:38||EoNy||Note Added: 0000019|
|2007-08-28 00:38||EoNy||Note Added: 0000020|
|2007-08-29 05:58||administrator||Legacy||=> NPJ|
|2007-08-30 08:29||Tann San||Note Added: 0000048|
|2008-09-21 15:53||Tann San||Target Version||=> 5.4.0|
|2009-01-05 18:33||administrator||Reporter||EoNy => pascalvmf|
|2010-03-08 10:17||administrator||Category||Page rights => page rights|
|2014-03-21 15:00||administrator||Target Version||5.4.0 => 5.5.0|
|2015-02-19 19:24||administrator||Target Version||5.5.0 => 6.1.x|
|2018-08-06 14:37||administrator||Target Version||6.1.x => 5.5.7|
|2019-01-14 14:21||administrator||Target Version||5.5.7 => 5.5.8|
|2019-02-14 12:04||administrator||Target Version||5.5.8 => 6.1.x|