On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 12:36 -0500, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > * Lastly, is there a problem in the first place? Or are we just > idly mulling over potential benefits of an all-open system vs. > selective system? Is the current solution not working? The only problem, I think, is that people don't know they are not allowed to edit until they try, then they can't figure out what is going wrong. I just had a user to whom it was not obvious what to do to get edit access. This was because the page he read said, "To be on the Ambassadors page, edit it and add yourself." The content didn't tell him how to gain edit access, or even that it was needed. It's hard, because there are myriad locations that tell people to edit the page, and it's a darn hassle to make each of those locations tell people _how_ to get edit access. Ideas: 1. wiki/HowToGetEditAccess is created and #included in any number of locations; using it becomes a process that people have to remember. 2. When a person is not logged in _or_ has an account without EditGroup privileges, one of these things occur: - Their WUI is different and has big red letters "WIKI IS READ-ONLY, to gain edit permissions ..." - When they get a perm denial, they are explicitly directed to HowToGetEditAccess FWIW, I don't think we should open up the whole Wiki. We are doing our job to be open, and some minimal hurdles are not unreasonable. Also FWIW, Docs/Beats has -no- ACLs to encourage content additions. AFAICT, no one has taken advantage of that in the four months it has been implemented (which more than covers Rahul's three month request). Docs/ and Docs/Drafts require DocWritersGroup to write and DocEditorsGroup to edit/change. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Content Services Fedora Documentation Project http://www.redhat.com/docs http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
