The proposed Help/Curated Docs system we are building on
#1549580: Track progress of building the Help/Docs System
needs some editorial workflow control, as detailed at

Proposed resolution

Find and/or build workflow solutions to satisfy the specifications at

Remaining tasks

1. Review existing workflow modules that we might be able to use. Modules that need to be reviewed or considered:

2. Choose which modules to use (probably just as a framework or starting point).

3. Extend or configure these modules to fit the system's needs.

Original report by Sree

Research workflow modules and techniques, and create (probably) an add-on for the Workbench module that would accomplish the editorial/translation workflows we need for the official help site This is 1 of the focussed task in the improvements for Drupal 8.

Detailed proposal:
Discussions around improving the help system :

Here I opened this thread to collect the opinions from everyone regarding this initiative.

We are currently exploring different options like workbench, workflow related modules, revisioning (as suggested by Alex) etc
We welcome more suggestions from everyone on the board here.



Thanks for opening this thread! (subscribing)


subscribing and interested in contributing.

Hi Vaidik,

Please share your ideas in the areas you are interested to contribute.
If you are interested to jointly coordinate with me on this task related to help system I am open for that as well.


Project:Drupal core» Documentation
Component:help.module» Docs infrastructure
Issue tags:+docs infrastructure

Adding tag, and moving this to the Doc issue queue for now, since this will not be going into Drupal Core really (it's for the site on *.d.o where we edit docs).

From #1054214: Handbook text review - a suggestion to check out the Text Review module as one possibility for editorial workflow.

Subscribing, also interested in helping with this - will look at the g.d.o list.

For another project, I checked out the Workbench module family today (D7 versions).

I think Workbench Moderation would be a somewhat good fit for this project, in that it allows for each revision to be moderated (draft -> needs review -> published) and for certain roles to have control over moderation. However, Workbench Moderation currently only works on Nodes. And we really need permissions that are based on project, not role. So it wouldn't work as-is... and I'm also not sure that we actually want to allow people other than the designated doc editors to submit revisions for review anyway.

Workbench Access offers some interesting ideas too. It allows a hierarchy to be defined (menu, taxonomy, or pluggable with a custom-built module). Each content item is then assigned to the hierarchy, and then editors are designated for the hierarchy, and each editor can edit items within his/her section. This could be good if we could designate the d.o projects as the hierarchy (each help topic is owned by a project), and if the d.o project maintainers had a way to designate the allowed docs editors. But again it would require some custom module development. And Workbench Access currently only works on Nodes.

So... I'm not sure exactly what either of these modules would buy us. Maybe nothing, since the main Workbench module is just a dashboard for editing, and using one of the sub-modules with it just gives you some extra tabs (which is nice, but doesn't solve the workflow issues we have).

Hi Jennifer,

Thanks for penning down your observations.
Yes, workbench wouldnt solve our exact purpose.
So only I was reviewing / evaluating all other workflow related options available for us which requires minimal (re)structuring efforts to meet our requirements.

Greg: Thanks for jumping in - we would welcome your opinions / views / suggestions.

Sounds good. Sree - it would probably help if you posted your observations about other modules as you go. For instance, if you had already reviewed Workbench and posted here, I would not have needed to post my observations, and everyone else who has offered to help would also know it's been reviewed.

Actually, maybe you could post a list of other modules that still need to be tested, and other people who have subscribed here could volunteer to test them? Teamwork!

Yes Jennifer! sure I was about to share my observations with the module list here.
Will do that shortly.

Hello everyone,

Sorry! I couldnt post my review last time due to some unavoidable circumstances.

Did anyone here tried Maestro: as workflow alternative?

Sree: If you have tried it, could you post your observations on this and any other modules you have tried out? I haven't tried anything else besides what I posted in #8 and no one else has posted anything either. Thanks!

Workbench is the only one I'm vaguely familiar with. It seems to be gaining a lot of popularity, so would be a good contender, as we must only consider modules with good support (otherwise they won't be considered acceptable by the infra team).

RE Workbench -- see #8 - it's not currently ready for what we need as far as I can tell -- would require significant custom module development, and I'm not sure if the framework provides enough to make that worthwhile over a purely custom solution.

Hi Jennifer, workbench or maestro doesnt suit our requirements directly.
So, we need to come up with some custom solution which would be acceptable by the infra team as well.

Kindly suggest.

Sree: Can you post more comments than "doesn't suit our requirements", so we can all understand your conclusions?

And if we need to come up with a custom solution, can we do it as an extension of an existing module, or do we need to start from nothing, in your opinion?

Hi Jennifer, yes I prepared a comparision chart few days back which I lost under some unexpected situation.
So, I am in a process of coming up with that comparision chart again & would get it posted here soon.
We can discuss in more detail about this once I post that chart here.
Thanks, Sree

This post seems relevant:

Issue tags:+valid issue

Tagging so it doesn't get picked up by #1421874: [meta] Documentation Issue Queue Cleanup

Title:help site - editorial/translation workflowsHelp/Docs system: editorial/translation workflow and permissions

This issue is now officially part of
#1549580: Track progress of building the Help/Docs System
and needs to be taken care of! :) I just created an issue summary -- help is requested in reviewing the modules and/or developing a solution.

Issue summary:View changes

Add an issue summary and summarize findings/progress/tasks to date

Issue summary:View changes

forgot link to master issue

I was just pointed to this issue by jennifer as needing some help.

I could be wrong, but coming in with a fresh pair of eyes I see this issue as fundamentally consisting of 2 distinct items:

  1. Determine how to provide access control by project
  2. Determine how to implement revision moderation

imo the first thing we need to do is determine definitely if the plan is still to use og to give each project a group. If that's the case, then we would definitely want to leverage that to control access to the documentation pages rather than adding some other type of access control which is likely to be a problem with the infra folks. Anyone know anything about this decision? An issue to follow or someone who is in charge of it? I just spent quite some time trying to find something and came up empty.

Then, regarding the revision moderation item, since it seems you guys already reviewed and discounted workbench, I would suggest next checking out the module. It's built up a nice little user base, seems well maintained, and integrates with lots of other building block modules. But honestly, the access control mechanism needs to be determined first as that could well influence module selection for this piece.

One last question-- are these changes planned for the d7 or should we worry about something that can exist on both d6 or d7?

RE #22 - I just talked to drumm and Bdragon in IRC about the plans for porting Project* to D7: The idea of using Organic Groups (making each Project a Group) has been dropped for D7, and the project permissions were pretty much done the same way in D7 Project* as they are in D6. (See issue: #1549854: Port project maintainers system)

Regarding the help system as a whole -- D7 only. We're not making any attempt for D6 compatibility.

Regarding access control vs. revision moderation -- yes they are somewhat separate... But we also want the project owner to be able to designate who can accept revisions for their project's official documentation. So basically, we need to be able to tie each help topic item to a project, and we need the project maintainers to be able to designate who has permission to create and edit them, and ideally "edit" would mean "accept revisions proposed by the community".

I also just talked to mikey_p in IRC, and he has offered to help if we need assistance getting this integrated with the Project module. He says there is a well-defined permissions system (hooks etc.) within the Project module, and we should be able to integrate with it.

Thanks for the fast update-- that's saves a whole lot of time going down the wrong path with og or d6. I'll start by digging into project* access control so I can get a better idea of what we need to implement for this.

Excellent, thanks!

Assigned:Sree» WorldFallz

ok, I'm gonna take this-- I have an idea for how to approach it. Is there a d7 dev instance of for prototyping documentation issues?

Hm. Getting a D7 instance to work on could be a problem at the moment, but maybe when we get rid of the one we're using for some D6 docs issues, we can use the space to create a D7 dev site for you to work on (and possibly some other stuff). Is it possible to make a local site using Project*? Also, note that the help topic entity module is a work in progress (not really to the "usable" state yet).

Issue summary:View changes

add OG to list of modules to evaluate