Mailing List Archive: Zope: CMF

[Zope-PTK] DISCUSS: What we want from reviewing

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

paul at digicool

Jan 14, 2000, 2:57 PM

Post #1 of 3 (494 views)
Permalink

[Zope-PTK] DISCUSS: What we want from reviewing

Pardon the DocBkXML markup below, but I tried to document the current
discussion about what reviewing should look like. Lemme know where I
got it wrong.

<para><emphasis>Reviewing</emphasis>. By default, when a
member authors a piece of content, the content isn't part of
the "public site". When a member requests that a piece of
content get reviewed and the content is approved, it
becomes part of the "public site".</para>

<para>The PTK includes extra roles to help this model.
First, Managers can turn Members into Contributors, meaning
their content doesn't require review. Next, Reviewers
receive email notifications and can approve content that
needs reviewing.</para>

<para>The goals of reviewing are straightforward. First,
Members with insufficient privileges should have their new
content reviewed before it is <em>visible</em>. In this
case, visible means the URL to the content should not reveal
the content, the content should not show up in searches or
topics, and the content should not be syndicated.</para>

<para>However, there is more to the policy than this.
First, different Members might have different authority.
For instance, by default the content managed by Contributors
needs no review. Next, the decision about whether an object
is visible is different for each role. That is, a Manager
should be able to view or search for anything. Most sites
will also want to make reviewing extend to edits and even
deletes as well as additions of content.</para>

<para>Additionally, content can move between a reviewed
state and an unreviewed state. In many cases one Reviewer
might decide to override another's decision. When many
Reviewers are involved, they need to efficiently get a list
of the things in the queue. As Reviewers perform actions on
content, these reviewing actions need to be recorded,
perhaps including comments about the action.</para>

<para>The PTK architecture accomplishes this set of goals
with a combination of reviewing metadata, connections to the
standard Zope permissions machinery, and metadata in the
SiteIndex, which is the default ZCatalog for the
portal.</para>

Note to Mike: Jim says that keyword index will be needed in the catalog
to have a list of values for permitted roles, rather than a field index
which can only have one value.

--Paul

mike at metamike

Jan 14, 2000, 3:09 PM

Post #2 of 3 (478 views)
Permalink

Re: [Zope-PTK] DISCUSS: What we want from reviewing [In reply to]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Paul Everitt wrote:

> <para><emphasis>Reviewing</emphasis>. By default, when a
> member authors a piece of content, the content isn't part of
> the "public site". When a member requests that a piece of
> content get reviewed and the content is approved, it
> becomes part of the "public site".</para>

Let's call the process of requesting and receiving a review
'publishing'. I think joe user will more easilly grasp publishing an
object that they have created as opposed to cataloging one. The action
will be 'Publish this object', which will take you to a form with the
object's history and current state, with buttons for request, withdraw
request, approve, reject, and revoke as appropreate to your roles and the
object's state.

As I've got it set up so far, an object has three possible
review_states, 'private', 'pending' and 'published'. The state is changed
by going through a method which records the time, who changed the state,
what action they took to do so (ie request, approve, reject), any comments
that accompanied the change and the new review_state value. There's no
interface to view it yet, but it's coming.

Mike.

--
Mike Pelletier email: mike [at] digicool
Mild mannered software developer icq: 7127228
by day, super villain by night. phone: 519-884-2434

mpratt at beehive

Jan 15, 2000, 3:39 AM

Post #3 of 3 (478 views)
Permalink

Re: [Zope-PTK] DISCUSS: What we want from reviewing [In reply to]

hello mike,

On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Mike Pelletier wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Paul Everitt wrote:
>
> > <para><emphasis>Reviewing</emphasis>. By default, when a
> > member authors a piece of content, the content isn't part of
> > the "public site". When a member requests that a piece of
> > content get reviewed and the content is approved, it
> > becomes part of the "public site".</para>
>
> Let's call the process of requesting and receiving a review
> 'publishing'. I think joe user will more easilly grasp publishing an
> object that they have created as opposed to cataloging one. The action
> will be 'Publish this object', which will take you to a form with the
> object's history and current state, with buttons for request, withdraw
> request, approve, reject, and revoke as appropreate to your roles and the
> object's state.
>
> As I've got it set up so far, an object has three possible
> review_states, 'private', 'pending' and 'published'. The state is changed
> by going through a method which records the time, who changed the state,
> what action they took to do so (ie request, approve, reject), any comments
> that accompanied the change and the new review_state value. There's no
> interface to view it yet, but it's coming.

does private mean that only users within a specific role can see
the content? for an online medical site we built we had the following
states:

public
(or) private
is viewable

public or private was how we differentiated between content
availible to anybody and private content only for registered
accredited doctors.

we didn`t need an editor role for this project but the "is
viewable" feature was designed to give the author control
at what time an article was to enter the website cycle.

generally, we find the publishing issues you seem to
be getting into with the ptk very exciting.

we have a lot of "golden nuggets" of software from
various projects we have done lying around beehive.
ex: archiving of articles by:

xnumber <pulldown> days, weeks, months

we are currently working on putting some of this
code into metapublisher -- maybe we could figure
out a way to join forces here and help you embed
metapublisher code into the ptk?

do you have a version of the ptk we can take a look
at without having to install cvs?

regards,

mark

--------------------------------------------------------------
mark pratt (managing director) mark [at] beehive
beehive elektronische medien GmbH http://www.beehive.de
phone: +49 30 847-82 0 fax: +49 30 847-82 299

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads