AlphaBetaTest / agrovoc-cs-workbench

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/agrovoc-cs-workbench
0 stars 0 forks source link

Policy for user accounts and roles in workflow #474

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
This is not a bug. 

It is about defining an explicit policty about how accounts and roles in the 
workflow are given. I think we all share similar intuition about this, but I 
realized there is quite some confusion around --- in my view because these 
policies are not made explicit and therefore not applied consistently. For 
example, all the accounts I got for the last training had complete access 
(including publisher rights) to both the demo and the development version. 

Sandbox for training and tests
------------------------------

1. Accounts are associated to all roles and rights, because users are meant to 
practice with and learn about all roles. 

2. Accounts are given to: people involved in training, and people involved in 
actual editing, as a means to practice before proceed to the real editing. 

3. Suggestion: it could be useful to make accounts on demos recognizable from 
the login already, as in: "caterina-demo"

Version for editing (development version)
-----------------------------------------

1. Accounts are associated to the role the user will play, ie in most cases 
term and ontology editor. 

2. The validator (and publisher etc.. ) role should be given only to those 
people (accounts) used to validate data. 

3. The person(s) granting access to the WB should decide which role to assign 
based on interaction with users or with FAO agrovoc team). 

Original issue reported on code.google.com by caterina...@gmail.com on 23 Nov 2010 at 1:31

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
I fully agree! It was already discussed to clear all current users when we get 
a new version, and that all users have to register again and will be assigned 
their role and language(s).

Original comment by gudrun.j...@fao.org on 23 Nov 2010 at 1:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
This is not a workbench issue. Please move this to AIMS.

Original comment by yjaq...@gmail.com on 26 Nov 2010 at 11:40

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by yjaq...@gmail.com on 10 Mar 2011 at 11:47

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by yjaq...@gmail.com on 10 Mar 2011 at 11:47

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by yjaq...@gmail.com on 10 Mar 2011 at 11:51

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by yjaq...@gmail.com on 10 Mar 2011 at 12:03