Jump to:
| Project: | Social Forum Call for Action |
| Version: | 5.x-.1.x-dev |
| Component: | User interface |
| Category: | feature request |
| Priority: | critical |
| Assigned: | mlncn |
| Status: | closed (fixed) |
Issue Summary
this default setting leave initiative of action space owner ( who will discover they are owner of action space) (to control who they let in the action space
so they shoud be warned by a message after creating the action / action space duo and instructed that they can "open" the group is they wish
i f they do not accept anyone - nobody else than them can create content in the action space
if they do accept people in , they give people permission to edit a lot of contents
deciding to limit or not edition of action inside the space ( see issue 9) is a plus
otherwise if groups are open soon the action space will be everybody's and nobody's space - not even related to the "umbrella" action is was created to support
especially with all the content editing posisiblities that are there ....
Comments
#1
Since this requires a form_alter and not just an administrative setting, I'm going to register my political disagreement with this approach. ;-)
We double-sure this is what we want to do?
Jamie McClelland: "You can't know if you can trust a person until you trust that person."
#2
ben
the context is the following
1/ we never said/"sold" to people that actions would be inside groups
and that we transform them into group owners
2/if we had a mechanism whereby a smaller group of mutually trusting people would be acountable for some umbrella content ( i-e the first/umbrella action ) I would be the first to say we could open all groups -
this i have said from day one: find a way to give visiblity and permission to people accountalbe while mixing them with those that have not this accountability ( free electrons ...)
but we do not have this and are stilli n the total blue as to whether this might ever be possible in this site ( what permission may group moderators have .. this does not seem to interest you
3/ you have delayed/postponed/resisted in making "one action only " a default setting in the group which we asked for - which could be a kind of safety net in an open group - this will be reasked
4/ so now not only the person presenting an action becomes owner of a group ,which she is not necessarly prepared for willing to , but the owner of an "open group ", where anyone can come in and post another action next to the first one and many other contents ,
while the first action is presented as pormoted by orgasniations which may totally disagree of having some of this " free" content also presetn in the group asosciated with tthe first action somehow
for those organisaiton it will be considered spam
5/ the only ressource owner have ( a major one ) is expelling troublemakers by unsubscribing them after they post "spam" content - but the owner cannot unshow this spam content as i understand
how to you want us to sell politically 1 4 5 to people who are not accustomed to "individuationning" social sites and think along their organisation guidelines ???
in any case and the choice is between "create close and open" or "create open and close" -
i think some communication in the " more important info about owning a group" in the feedback page and in the top of action group sidebar menu is necessary,
i think "create close and open" is more relevant for people in the forum for the time being t- we should not force them to be open
#3
i aggree with pierre, but i proposed to postponed this discussion.
we can open the website as it is now, and we'll have time to talk about later :)
#4
#5
we have to warn people about this "open" situation - will be done inthe how text
#6
The Drupal 5 branch of this project is no longer being maintained.