Fine tuning the permissions systems of CPG pics administration

[cgc0202]

Hi,

While very bulky, one of the reasons why I like TikiWiki is its collaborative environment in creating a site and its very sophisticated permissions system, especially for the "wiki" pages. Tikiwiki, aside from being a :wiki" also has both file and image galleries.  However, the photogallery component is not as sophisticated as Coppermine or other stand-alone photo galleries program.

I must admit that I have just begun to explore the "Groups" and "Albums" administration of CPG -- but I hope it will follow the more complex fine tuning of permissions being developed in  "wiki" and "forum" softwares, of course adopted for photo gallery administration.

In  a more collaborative environment for example, I hope eventually to share the administrative work with quite a few people.  However, when I look at what I could do as an Administrator, it is amazing how I can erase the content of an  entire album with just one click.  Or erase the work of others for that matter. etc., etc.

The way I envision to delegate administrative functions therefore in such a large undertaking would be to find tune what duties are delegated to sub-administrators -- not so  much only into limiting what sites they can administer but also what they can do. 

For example, they could be grouped as editors, community leaders, curators of specific categories, etc.  Some may serve to have powers like approving registered members, deciding what photos are accepted within their sphere of influence. The editors may function as the name says, to edit the text that would go with the photos, etc.Curators may decide to spearhead the creation of specific categories within their own expertise, much like what curators do in museums and galleries.

None should have the omnipotent power of the overall administrator even in the categories that they administer.

As an overall Administrator though,  once a photo has been accepted by the category administrator, I would be hesitant to wield the power to "delete" any  photo in the archived approved photos, let alone allow the current feature in CPG to be able to delete the content of an entire Album.  This power must be at the discretion of the main administrator (or perhaps a select few) but not even the sub-administrator to decide on his/her own.

One way of doing the process systematicaly would be just like in the initial steps during the submission process, but this time, the object would be to prune the archive to a manageable level by removing redundancy or those that were not as good as the newer additions, if any.  In this reverse process,  the Category or Album administrator has the power to accept of reject submissions, the next stage would be for them to recommend to the main Administrator the deletion of already "previously approved" photos already in the database of a category or an Album.

Since that may be too much work for the overall Administrator, it may be done through a concensus committee, with some archival to ensure that if there was any mistake, there is an archive to fall back to.

It would have been ideal to have a "wiki" like system for the text, whereby copies of the  historical versions of the text would be stored but this might be asking too much for CPG in the near future. [In the interim, what I will try to do though is sort of marry the two features, so that the comments and text are created in a wiki page, with the photo based on the CPG and other features assocated with CPG that are now not possible with any wiki.]

cgc0202

[Joachim Müller]

moderator capabilities have already been requested and discussed.

[cgc0202]

moderator capabilities have already been requested and discussed.

GauGau,

Would it be possible to know what what requested and discussed?

I am discussing more than moderators, but the fine tuning of the permissions.  I  have looked at the CPG permissions systems, while I have not really explored it fully yet, it looks like if you are assigned administrator privileges in a folder (or category), you get all the powers of an Administrator -- including delete all photos and the album, if you want to,

In the real world, people delegate powers, but they do not give all powers to an individual.


cgc0202

[Joachim Müller]

http://forum.coppermine-gallery.net/index.php?topic=6742.0

[cgc0202]

http://forum.coppermine-gallery.net/index.php?topic=6742.0

Thanks GauGau,

I just read the whole thing.  Here are my observations, I hope you do not get mad with my observations.

First:  There were many opinions provided, including those I raised here.  However,  I did not read any discussion about the pros and cons about why one option would be better than the other.  To give one example where there are opposing view on a specific issue:

One group:  Give both edit/delete option to moderator
Other group:  Give edit option but not delete permission to moderator.  There are quite a few who voiced this preference.  I happen to belong to this group, and I briefly outlined the reasons why.

Second:  Without much deliberattion on the pros and cons, suddenly the discussion shifted to when to have the "moderator" mod be implemented -- soon was the general consensus.  But, the most basic issue:  What would be framework of the  "moderator" mod was not properly deliberated.  [Just my opinion.]

Third: Abbas  was good enough to step in front and come up with the mod.   To have the mod is a good thing.  It is better than nothing -- because administering a big site would be a lot of work for a single person.  Unfortunately for us however, who are in the other side, Abbas choice was to  lump both edit and delete function to the moderator -- rather than have them as separate permissions.

[Joachim Müller]

A more granular approach would mean a general overhaul of the way coppermine works. You would be losing backwards compatibilty. The dev team has agreed not to do this for cpg1.x.x. It may go into cpgNG (aka cpg2.x), but there's no saying if or when this will happen. Please keep the moderator discussion to one thread, preferably the one I refered to. Having thoughts posted in different places will make it harder for devs in the future and it will it more likely that your thoughts are being forgotten about or not taken into account.
Wishful thinking is one thing, actual coding an entirely different animal. Just coming up with a mod that does what you're up to is hardly possible, as you would have to modify coppermine's overall structure.