search

neatnik / omg.lol

Cool stuff for omg.lol
MIT License
359 stars 50 forks source link

Allow more than one owner/account per omg.lol address #99

Open lxjv opened 2 years ago

lxjv commented 2 years ago

so i have an O.L address (sin.omg.lol) for a thing that me and a friend are creating and i dont want to be the only one that can change stuff

(ahem paging @PlagueMan)

ThijsNameIsTaken commented 2 years ago

This is basically why I created #34 (tbh also seems like an easier managable option, just create a second account and put the domain on it.)

lxjv commented 2 years ago

yeah i just think its kind of counter productive to have to log out of my account, find the login for that account, login to it, change stuff then repeat with my account

chxseh commented 2 years ago

Transferring ownership and having two accounts that have access to one address is not the same thing and should be treated as such.

newbold commented 2 years ago

This is a great idea. Here's what I'm thinking:

  1. Each address has a single canonical owner — which would be the person who bought it, by default (and the person 'responsible' for the address in the context of adhering to the TOS)
  2. The address owner can invite other people to co-manage the address. They'd invite via email address, which would send a link. Invitee clicks the link to accept, which creates an account for them and they'll see the address listed as if it was their own (but it will be clear that they're a "co-manager", not an "owner".
  3. Co-managers would be able to manage all aspects of the address except for adding additional co-managers or transferring address ownership (which is going to be a separate thing @ThijsNameIsTaken so #34 is still going to be done). While a more granular permission level (e.g. "they can update the profile but not change DNS) would be nice, in the interest of getting the feature out the door I'd like to keep it simple. People who use the feature will just need to trust the people that they invite to co-manage an address.

Am I leaving anything out there? I think this should cover a minimum viable implementation of the feature (and meet @lakerjv's use case) but let me know anyone can think of other stuff to consider here. Looking forward to getting started on this soon!

chxseh commented 2 years ago

Sounds like exactly what I was expecting!

lxjv commented 2 years ago

thats perfect! :))

nyakase commented 2 years ago

i agree with @ChxseH here, that's what i was expecting as well granual permissions would be cool but could be added later

lxjv commented 1 year ago

@newbold we could use this for the updates blog and stuff!