[Zope-CMF] Proposed default workflow policy change

[Shane Hathaway]

Ken Manheimer wrote:
> 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).

That's how it is now.  Private items are not accessible.

> 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's what I suggested in a different post. :-)

> 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.

What you're really talking about is just another WorkflowDefinition.  I
wonder if we should go ahead and create the web-configurable workflow
definition just so everyone can see how easy it is to implement all of
this. :-)

Shane