[Zope-CMF] Proposed default workflow policy change

[Ken Manheimer]

> So I propose that objects in the "pending" state be made accessible
> immediately.  Pending items wouldn't show up in catalog searches unless
> requested on the advanced search form.

I also object to this approach.  Last i checked, free email accounts
mitigate any trust assurance from an email validity check.  I would be
strongly inclined to have the default policy err on the conservative side,
but enable the site administrator to adjust it to more liberal settings,
according to their needs.

I could see this all pointing to an interesting direction for the release
governing mechanisms.  My concern for conservatism is motivated by a
specific use-case - "protecting" arbitrary members from being exposed to
objectionable material.  What i would *like* to see is different release
states, and the ability for members to regulate their level of exposure
according to state (and regulate the level of exposure of those for whom
they're responsible).

For instance, i assume there's currently something like "unreleased" and
"reviewed/released".  (My apologies for not being better acquainted with
the current mechanisms.  I think my thoughts will still apply.)  I think
it would be valuable to have a "released/unreviewed" state, and some
settable member preference about exposure to items in that state.

That way, people can elect to not be exposed to stuff, if they're
concerned about being offended - and legal guardians can set the
preference for their dependents, to prevent them from seeing the stuff.  
The default would be to inhibit exposure, so people would have to
"opt-in" to be exposed - and minors would not be able to change their own
setting.

Ultimately, i'd like to see such a scheme elaborated so there can be
various kinds of delegation of the reviewing responsibility.  For
instance, one interesting scheme involves two pieces:

 - The ability for members to raise "objections" to released stuff.

 - The ability to specify a "latency" for exposure to
   "released/unreviewed" stuff, and to specify some threshold of
   member-voted "objectionability" which will keep the stuff unviewable.

This way, the community can be self-policing.  Guardians concerned about
the exposure of their dependents, but wanting to allow some exploration,
can elect for a latency and objections threshold to give time for the
community to review stuff.  

Another refinement would involve specifying that the guardians,
themselves, or some arbitrary group of members, have to review stuff for
it to be eligible for viewing by their dependents.

Lots of possibility here, given a more elaborate review record structure.

Ken Manheimer
klm@digicool.com