Re: [Exist-development] Proposal to change security design of groups

[Dmitriy S. <sha...@gm...>]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Adam Retter <ad...@ex...> wrote:

> >>2) Any user can remove themselves from any group they choose - I
> >>cannot think of a case where downgrading a users rights prevents a
> >>security risk. This is the users right!
> > I did mail before, we must agree on terms we going to use. 'owner' is
> quite
> > good, but limited. My offer: group's 'manager'
>
> Owner or manager really makes no difference to me. In English it would
> seem to me that 'owner' is the more accurate and succinct term.
>

 By limited I did mean that there are two possible roles: memeber
list manager (hope that's clear) & group's permisions manager (change
resource permissions, that change group access level). I'm happy to have
only group's 'owner' if there only one role under this, but I did show: it's
multi-roles defenation, that's why it bad one.


> > (can change members list &
> > permissions for group, it can be 2 different roles ) & 'member' (use
> group's
> > permissions). It simple to see that there can be person that can manage,
> but
> > have no access for resources.
>
>
> I am not clear on why a group would have 'permissions'? Surely
> collections and resources have permissions in terms of owner and
> group, but not the group object itself.
>

Mirror your view and you will get my one.

-- 
Dmitriy Shabanov