Roles for users

[Number8]

It would be very helpful to be able to define "Roles" and assign them to users.
A Role wold be a template for the tasks a user could perform (much more granular than the current permissions).  For example, just using Tasks: Create a task, edit a task, delete a task, re-assign a task, mark a task as complete.
I can imagine Roles defined at a 'global' level, then being inherited and refined in a a workspace. 

Looking forward to 1.0....

[conrado]

This is what the 'groups' are for.

Maybe we could rename it. The 'groups' label might be misleading?

[Number8]

Groups are a start, but don't have enough granularity.  Unless I missed something, they can't be linked to workspaces, either.

For a project, we might have a manager, a lead dev, several developers, a docs person, QA, etc.  It would be quite powerful to create roles that determine what each person can create, edit, delete, etc. 

Something like the permissions you can set for an individual user for a particular workspace.

[cabeza]

Thanks number8 for your feedback.
In the future we thought about expanding groups so that per workspace permissions could be assigned to them.
However, your proposal is that roles are defined per workspace, independently of groups, isn't it?
I.e. John can have QA permissions in project A, but have developer permissions in project B .... it is a slightly different approach from the one in groups.
Groups are intended to group users and assign the same permissions to everybody in the group.
This means, example: System-wide-group named Developers will have read/write permissions on worksapaces A, B and C.
Anyway, your idea sounds interesting ....
Marcos

[cabeza]

Further thinking ... in version 0.9 (and before), roles can be assigned to "link" contacts and workspaces (contact view, assign to workspace). However these views do not involve permissions (because they do not involve users).
Marcos

[Number8]

Thanks for the reply, Marcos.

My experience with Roles comes from my (limited but growing)  use of WordPress.  They have pre-defined roles (Admin, Editor, Contribtor,etc.), and a plug-in that allows you to create new roles based on the the existing one.  That facility doesn't have to deal with the idea of multiple workspaces, of course.

So, Groups and Roles are different, and I'm not sure what their relationship would be.
Maybe Roles are Workspace-based, while Groups are system-wide.
Perhaps there could be system-wide 'templates' for roles that could be customized for each workspace.
If Groups are to be system-wide, perhaps it is an expansion on the current "admin / not admin" that gets set per-user. 
In this light, Roles would be linked to a workspace, while a Group would be a system-wide Role -- Admin, Editor, Reader, and so on.

[cabeza]

I agree, and it sounds like an interesting feature ....
Currently in OpenGoo, the option "Is Administrator" is a shotcut to add the user to the administrator group.
Marcos

[plan_b]

I am new to the forms of collaboration models like Feng Office, but I also played around with ActiveCollab (yeah I know this is a fork of it) and I will say I do like how they handle Roles... It's pretty easy to follow and understand with "System Roles" and "Project Roles" and the ability to create new/edit in each.

I playing around with FO and I haven't (yet) figured out how to add/edit 'system' type roles like I was able to in ActiveCollab.

I do like being able to have 'generic' roles like the have in ActiveCollab (Client Company Manager, Client Company Member, Project Manager, Administrator that are by default install) and can granulate more from there in the Project Roles.

[franponce87]

plan_b, have you checked out the Groups section in the Administration panel?

Best regards,
Francisco