I think it makes sense to add an "editor" role to Workbench, and provide it with sensible default permissions.

(If a role with that name already exists, then it should be respected – none of its existing permissions should be changed.)

This role can then be used by other Workflow modules, to provide good default settings – to use as examples, if nothing else.

Comments

robeano’s picture

robeano commented
Priority: Normal » Minor
Status: Active » Postponed

I request that we hold on implementing this right now. We are currently working on some 2.x features that can help rectify have "sane defaults" for user roles specifically with Workbench Moderation. These changes may affect the current permissions used as well as provide a path for managing "sane defaults" for user roles
for all Workbench modules.

If this is truly needed right away, then I would love to have some input into what you think the defaults should be for Workbench Moderation and Workbench Access for the Editor user role.

itangalo’s picture

itangalo commented

Postponing this to 2.x seems like a good approach, if that will combine it with other "sane default". Looking forward to seeing it!

Taxoman’s picture

Taxoman commented

Can the mentioned 2.x-dev branch be made visible here, so testing and discussions can go on there instead of in the 1.x queue? (Almost a year has passed now, this is still in the 1.x queue.)

bbinkovitz’s picture

bbinkovitz commented
Status: Postponed » Closed (fixed)

Sorry if there was confusion about this. It was implemented in Workbench Moderation, not Workbench. That's the 7.x-2.x branch @robeano was talking about. It will not be implemented in Workbench because each of the Workbench Suite sub-modules should be independent of the others to the extent possible. I don't see a compelling use case for an editor in Workbench without Workbench Moderation, but if one can be presented, I'd be happy to work on that.