On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi James,
On 21 Apr 2014, at 19:16, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:
Philippe and I have worked hard to try and make the 'staff' user group as it traditionally stands a very 'as needed' right and so the default is
now
to give out no rights or "smaller", more focused, rights (meta admin, central notice admin, global interface editor etc) that fit their need. ( we ask for a use case for every rights request, you can see most of them here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvhjkTJIpW2zdDl1bVBuOU1jQUJwOHd...
rights aren't on there because they are generally handled by engineering).
Thanks for sharing that link. It didn't work for me the first time, but removing the output= parameter fixes that, so the working URL is:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvhjkTJIpW2zdDl1bVBuOU1jQUJwOHd... Please can this be turned onto an on-wiki document, rather than being a google doc, as it's quite an important one that should be transparent to the community as a whole! I'd be happy to help with the wikification if that would be useful.
Thanks, Mike
Nemo was nice enough to add it to the the user groups page on meta so that it's linked from there as well.
Right now it's on a google doc because it is a public view of the tracking spreadsheet Philippe and I use (which includes staff whose rights requests were denied or removed as well as some contact info and additional tracking (for example for the formal "staff rights" themselves we give training on what kind of approvals are needed for certain actions and record when that was done) and so gets automatically updated as I update that. I originally did it on a private wiki (I have a strong preference for wiki of some sort vs google docs personally) but the spreadsheet has just tended to be a significantly easier tool for tracking and updating. I wouldn't want to duplicate it on wiki unless we put my whole process there (otherwise it is significantly more likely to get out of date) and to do that would require some additional discussion and thinking.
James