Thanks Gary and Andrew I did not realize I could map a new policy to the permissions of existing groups - cool! But Gary, I think you are right. If I give a publisher access to the security/security tab. They can in-turn add themselves to the 'system admin' group (this is of course not acceptable). So I would think the only way I can decentralize adding users is to do some re-writing of the tool.
Security access is to the TAB. There is no reason why it couldn't be more granular. Just hasn't been a high priority for us.
One of the things we're looking at doing for future milestone releases is defining better in advance what should be part of that release in the hope of better organising both our resources and potnetially those of the community.
If you have a requirement that means a change to CORE, clearly defining that requirement is a good start to:
a) letting us know what people want
b) giving us a chance to feedback our own thoughts and those of the community
c) getting a collaborative effort in place to build the desired functionality
So if you have an idea of how you think security should be broken down, please let us know :)
-- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/
--- You are currently subscribed to farcry-dev as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
