Sam Ruby wrote on 4/22/17 9:41 PM: > Perhaps we should have a public version and a private version, both > based on the same data?
Yes. Will need help figuring out the right way to display & auth that, so that the display code can still be clean. In particular, the design goal is that there's a URL non-committers can go to and they are *not* asked to auth, and they only get public data there. > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Shane Curcuru <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> - Should we have an "email-private" flag? That would prevent publishing >> the email: attribute if the treasurer, for example, didn't want >> treasurer@ published. > > FYI: ASF::Mail.lists(true) will tell you whether a given list has a > public or private archive. I realize that may not be what you are > looking for given that you want the trademark list to show up even if > the archive is private. ACK, but I see org chart data as structural from the organization's point of view, not strictly list privacy. What we really need is to change the metaphor for this dataset so the officer chooses the contact-email (for urgent matters, officers *will* respond) and mailing-list (may be for general discussion/may take longer to respond) entries that are either -for-public or -private. I.e. the decision of which contact methods get published where is up to the officer. >> - Should the roster: attribute be public? In some cases it's clearly >> fine, like board. But would it be OK to publish it for >> group/asf-treasurer and group/asf-secretary? (on second thought, it >> doesn't make any sense, since the roster/group/* links are all >> committer-private anyway). > > It can make sense... perhaps the public version link should go to the > phone directory. Good point, forgot about that. But needs a little thought for mapping to which phonebook.html? groups to default to. > >> - We need to scrub [goals] [tasks] for a few entries that have detailed >> descriptions that the authors might not have written for publication. > > Perhaps add <private></private> sections and have the public view > remove text within these markers? Is there an existing function to do this, or do we need to copy the minutes.gsub lines from board/agenda/minutes.rb and stick in the right place? > > - Sam Ruby > -- - Shane https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
