microsoft / vsts-extension-retrospectives

An Azure DevOps extension for efficient retrospectives
MIT License
180 stars 80 forks source link

Extension Permissions #498

Closed tthb1 closed 7 months ago

tthb1 commented 1 year ago

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. When the extension is installed, it is impossible for me to define clear permissions on the retrospectives. Indeed, as soon as a reader is authorized on the project, he can access all the retrospectives in reading and writing.

Describe the solution you'd like Allow in the Security tab of the project or collection to define who can access retrospectives and who can write (or limit access to the project team at less)

Describe alternatives you've considered

Additional context In Scrum, retrospectives are for the product team. In this case, when the backlog is shared with an entire organization or when it is public, it reduces the ability of team members to express themselves.

johndoe1982 commented 1 year ago

100% agree on this issue! Retrospectives should be a safe place and especially with the history being available it should only be accessible by the DevOps team.

Luuk-Kramer commented 1 year ago

I'd like to support this too. We want to use the retrospective extention at my work but that is impossible without this feature. We have several teams and we would currently be able to see eachothers retrospective boards. And as Johndoe1982 above me said, Retrospectives should be a safe place.

tthb1 commented 1 year ago

Hello,

I'm coming back to you regarding this change request. Is it possible to integrate rights management in the extension?

THANKS

omegasupreme3 commented 1 year ago

The core principle of the retrospective is that it should be a safe space. How is it possible that this feature request after 3 years still does not support this? Making sure that only members of the Scrum/Agile team can access the board should have been the first thing to implement ... Instead of nice graphs, new icons to select. Please give this feature request real priority!

These issues are addressing the same problem: