Is it possible to add a new role for group members (allocation of permissions)?
Right now we have group members who are "admins" and others who are "members", and so we can set different permissions.
We would like to give some "members" the permission to "view and edit" the group library (without turn them into admins) but other "members" should only be able to "view". Is it somehow possible to add an additional role, e.g. read-only members?
We would like to give some "members" the permission to "view and edit" the group library (without turn them into admins) but other "members" should only be able to "view". Is it somehow possible to add an additional role, e.g. read-only members?
That said, adding more roles and role capabilities for roles is something worth considering. Are there any other people that want additional roles? What kinds of use cases would additional roles let you accomplish that current functionality does not accommodate?
The permission infrastructure isn't flexible?Nevermind, sounds like it is, and you're just referring to the current UI.
http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/14143/new-role-editing-privileges-for-add-only/#Item_2
Could you please give us a feedback?
Thank you!
0. admin (all rights + group settings, members, etc.)
1. view & edit items & attachments
2. view items & attachments
3. view items only
The latter role is especially useful when (as in the use case linked above) you want to give someone access to your collaborative bibliography but not necessarily want to distribute all attachments to that person.
I would love to see a simple roles/capabilities system along the lines of the WordPress system, with a limited number of default roles (covering everything most people need) and the possibility to edit capabilities at role level (covering the special uses). Perhaps in addition to the ones mentioned above, other capabilities like "adding/editing notes" and "tagging" would make sense, as per this thread.
I think Mark's schema above works reasonably well for my needs. I have a library that includes attachments that I own and one's that I don't. Many of the later are publicly available, and where possible my records include the URL where they can be found, but technically I shouldn't be hosting them. So, Mark's option 3 above would let me share the library, without copyright/permission violations (but still allow members that level of access).
https://forums.zotero.org/discussion/22731/roles-for-group-libraries-a-proposal/
However, I do see that Notes are accessible. Might be nice to be able to turn that off.
Could also be nice to be able to turn off the display of the attachments. I'm of two minds on this one, but I think the biggest argument in favor of this would be user confusion -- the attachment looks like it should be an accessible link, but doesn't behave that way. Not showing it, or having a mouse-over message, could be a useful option.
Is this threat still ongoing? Looking into this for quite sometime and working on a large Historical Sources database it would be helpful if the following user permissions are possible:
Admin (add and edit all records)
Member (Can read all records and view attachements)
NEW:
Contributor: Can Add and edit only its own records and can view attachments.
Public: Can view all records but can't view/open attachment. From Zotero standalone.
Thank you very much
Take care
Francisco
I think generally improvements to permissions for groups are still planned, but no idea where they are on the list of priorities.
So it would be really useful to have a way that someone could add things to the archive, but not delete or move them. Or that there was some form of wiki method to revert changes (I recognize that this is not likely, because files are often involved)
So in either case, please consider this a bump for having more granular permissions being added, hopefully both on the case of what a permission group can do, and also more granularity on permissions on specific collections/subcollections within a group.
I faced the exact same issue mikefortun reported about a year ago.
Just a minor request, I have no idea how difficult this would be to implement.
A role where "someone could add things to the archive, but not delete or move them".