Re: [Design] Reconciling sharing privileges with the Edit / Update workflow

[Mimi Yin]

Jeremy's scenario brings up another wrinkle in the collaboration scenario. We would like to allow users to be able edit and any item that they receive explicitly via a capital-N notification.  For example: A shares a collection with B and grants B read-only priveleges. However, there is 1 item where A and B are collaborating heavily (e.g. Restaurant recommendations for SF). A stamps it as a communication and addresses it B and expects B to be able to edit the list, even though B only has read privileges on the collection the item lives in. We need this to work in order to make the Stamping/Edit/Update workflows consistent across all scenarios. Otherwise, we will end up in the confusing situation where Chandler users who aren't sharing at all will have more flexibility wrt editing and updating items than Chandler users who are sharing (read-only). Question: Is it possible to grant users edit privileges on items where they are specifically called out in the Addressing fields? On Jul 11, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Jeremy Epstein wrote: you dont have to.  The permissions you assign have everything to do with how you stamp events: "invitations" only allow "reply actions" for the invitees "meetings" may allow "accept" "reject" "tentative" and "schedule" if you are not on the list for an event you can only look at it. Maybe not even that. etc... that and the rule "you can never touch someone else's event" unless you are made an "owner" of the calendar.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design