Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone 4] Framework Team Minutes – Sept 16, 2009

Martin Aspeli optilude+lists at
Thu Sep 24 16:19:25 UTC 2009

Alec Mitchell wrote:
> Owner was there in Plone < 3.0.  IIRC, it was removed because the name
> is confusing, particularly since it is redundant with the object
> ownership.  Granting the Manager role means giving local ZMI rights
> and even the ability to e.g. add a local acl_users and create a little
> fiefdom,  which may not be wise to allow through the sharing tab.  In
> any case only Managers would be able to grant Manager, whereas Owner
> could be granted more easily.  However, I'd suggest we add it back
> only if we can find a suitable synonym for it.  Being able to say
> "grant this person the same rights that I (the creator of this
> content) have" is a very useful thing, even if the default
> nomenclature is confusing.  Alternatively, we could adjust the
> workflows to make e.g. 'Contributor' more powerful.

We can certainly add these roles back, though again I think it's outside 
the scope of the PLIP (which merely makes it easier for people to add 
them themselves using GenericSetup).

I'm -1 on adding Owner: I think it causes a lot of confusion. That said, 
we could maybe have it managed in another way, whereby you get a 
different form for "change ownership" that lets you assign multiple 
owners (maybe with one designed as "primary"). This would set the 
Contributors metadata and assign the Owner role to multiple people.

I'm +0 on adding Manager. It's certainly useful in a lot of situations. 
In theory, yes, they could go add a bunch of stuff to the ZMI, but for 
most sites that's not an issue, and sometimes you *do* want to delegate 
the role.


Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See

More information about the Framework-Team mailing list