You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When you create an access group in Mozillians, you automatically get a team drive. There are a few rough edges in the current implementation.
Every team member is granted "manager" rights on the team drive. For larger groups, this leads to massive spam if a non-group member asks for access to a doc on the team drive.
I think a better approach would be to only grant "manager" rights to team curators
the default for regular members should be "content manager" or "contributor"
Since drive permissions can be granted independently of the mozillians' group membership, access could get funky, in that group removal may not remove that person from access to docs. It would be nice to have some tools to identify such cases, with the option to do a batch correction. (Either invite folks to team, or remove non-team from drive access.)
A few more group setup options would be handy. Specifically:
whether or not a team drive should be created
what the non-curator initial permission should be (I can see a use case for "viewer" to avoid the issues in (2).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When you create an access group in Mozillians, you automatically get a team drive. There are a few rough edges in the current implementation.
Every team member is granted "manager" rights on the team drive. For larger groups, this leads to massive spam if a non-group member asks for access to a doc on the team drive.
Since drive permissions can be granted independently of the mozillians' group membership, access could get funky, in that group removal may not remove that person from access to docs. It would be nice to have some tools to identify such cases, with the option to do a batch correction. (Either invite folks to team, or remove non-team from drive access.)
A few more group setup options would be handy. Specifically:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: