[p2pu-dev] another argument for a "webmaster" group

Jessica Ledbetter jessica at jessicaledbetter.com
Fri Jun 3 14:29:29 UTC 2011


Yes, I asked about Flash on the community list because of that comment. I
didn't contact him though because I thought it was already happening and
didn't want to bombard him with messages.

It looks like Pippa clarified that it's OK on P2PU (which is the same
response I got from community members on the community list) but not SoW.

Maybe people assume if it's web-related, it goes under SoW. I think we have
new code incoming 0.7 that has an approval process. I saw some placeholders
for it anyway. Zuzel can clarify :)

And roles:
Webmaster role that can comment on anything and see anything. Is that
different than 'admin' role? We can play off of django group/levels probably
to allow the same people ability to edit the static pages as well as comment
on groups they're not a part of. Maybe a policy for deleting/editing too --
like if someone gets hacked and posts inappropriate links or links that
could compromise other people's security. What that role can and can't do
should probably be hashed out with community though unless it has and I
forgot :)

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Nadeem Shabir <ns at talis.com> wrote:

> Philipp
>
> On 3 June 2011 13:33, Philipp Schmidt <phi.schmidt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I saw a general mention about a flash course on the webcraft list, but
>> believe that the main communication happened between Pippa and him off list.
>> However, I am pretty sure that Pippa would have made it clear that while the
>> course might not fit into School of Webcraft, it would be very welcome as a
>> P2PU course. So, it's probably a matter of clarifying that - but would be
>> useful if I (Alison, Pippa, Bekka, etc.) could do that on his course home
>> page so that others don't get confused.
>>
>
> Thanks for the clarification, and yes it would be better if whoever had the
> discussion with him could clarify that on the course homepage, a) to avoid
> confusion and b) make it clear that we are not the "bad guys" in this.
> Like you, my initial reaction to his comment, was that it didn't paint P2PU
> in a very good light. So clarifying what happened, and making it clear that
> whilst his course might not fit into the School of Webcraft it would be
> welcome as a P2PU course should make it clear to anyone who reads those
> comments that this was simply a misunderstanding.
>
> - N
>
> -- P
>>
>>
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> N
>>>
>>> On 3 June 2011 10:04, Philipp Schmidt <phi.schmidt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://new.p2pu.org/en/groups/flash-911/
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to be able to reply to his comment that "the p2pu has said
>>>> that flash911 is not a kind of study group they need here." It's not only
>>>> not true, but it also makes us sound like we are not nice people.
>>>>
>>>> Users with webmaster should be allowed to participate/comment in any of
>>>> the groups.
>>>>
>>>> -- P
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> p2pu-dev mailing list
>>>> p2pu-dev at lists.p2pu.org
>>>> http://lists.p2pu.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pu-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2pu-dev mailing list
>>> p2pu-dev at lists.p2pu.org
>>> http://lists.p2pu.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pu-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2pu-dev mailing list
>> p2pu-dev at lists.p2pu.org
>> http://lists.p2pu.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pu-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2pu-dev mailing list
> p2pu-dev at lists.p2pu.org
> http://lists.p2pu.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pu-dev
>
>


-- 
Jessica Ledbetter
http://jessicaledbetter.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.p2pu.org/pipermail/p2pu-dev/attachments/20110603/84b77b89/attachment.html>


More information about the p2pu-dev mailing list