[Theforum] An Idea ...

Michele Foster michele at wordpro.on.ca
Sat Dec 1 19:17:40 CST 2001

----- Original Message -----
From: "Warden, Matt" <mwarden at mattwarden.com>

| But why the need for another priv? Why not give them priv=3 right off the
| bat? If they dont' feel ready, they can just sit back like we did. If they
| do feel ready, they can edit. If they felt ready and they really weren't
| and they mess up, we would be able to restore the content to where it was
| before they got their hands in it.

I was trying to find a "middle" ground .. one that may (or may not) have
more support.  I know what you are saying tho .. and we both agree on the
importance of opening things up .. and we both want the same end goal ..
those that want to help are able too.

| Sorry, Im' just having a really hard time finding a reason for any type of
| validation process. In my view, regardless of whether we go with a
| trust-based induction or not, we need the CMS changes. And if we have the
| CMS changes, then I don't see the need for this review process of people
| who WANT to lend a hand.

This is very true .. and I personally don't have a problem with it.  My idea
was an attempt to reach a compromise between the two ends of the spectrum.

I'm curious, and you've probably outlined this before .. but could you
refresh my memory on what kind of CMS changes you are thinking about?  Does
this relate to my asking if we can add a feature that prevents two users
from editting the same article?  Not that I doubt ya, just trying to get a
handle on what can be done with the CMS which will easily allow for rolling
back a transaction, if that is indeed what you mean.  General explanation
good enough, I'm not asking for a complete technical assessment.  ;)

| Like I said to Michele, it will be a sad day at evolt when we tell someone
| who wants to help out that they can't because we didn't get enough people
| to "okay" their helping hand.

I know .. and I agree.   :)


More information about the theforum mailing list