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

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

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Adam Retter <ad...@ex...> wrote:

> >> 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.
>
> Okay I think I am not understanding something, because I can only see
> that there is one role here?
>
> >>
> >> > (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.
>
> Can we teleconf about this, as I am afraid that I am not following
> you. When is good for you Dmitriy?


I did try to contact you today, but ... So, tomorrow 20:00 my time?

-- 
Dmitriy Shabanov