Beehaw Support

2796 readers

1 users here now

Support and meta community for Beehaw. Ask your questions about the community, technical issues, and other such things here.

A brief FAQ for lurkers and new users can be found here.

Our September 2024 financial update is here.

For a refresher on our philosophy, see also What is Beehaw?, The spirit of the rules, and Beehaw is a Community

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

if you can see this, it's up

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Penguincoder@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Administration proposal: roles/permissions (github.com)

submitted 1 year ago by TKilFree@beehaw.org to c/support@beehaw.org

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but its sort of a meta topic so I hope it fits here?

There's some technical details in the linked post, but it's basically a proof of concept for a role system which I think would help with the current administrative burden and generally unlock some community management features.

The gist of it is rather than having a single admin flag per user, we build a system where each individual admin action (banning users, purging posts or whatever) are locked behind fine-grained permissions. A user with the appropriate permissions would then be able to add/configure new roles.

Practically this might mean a few things:

admins could delegate heavy but not hugely sensitive tasks like approving new user registration;
we could have site-wide moderators without the admins needing to trust that person enough to give them the power to wreck the whole server;
it'd even be possible in future to configure things like new users only having permission to view, not post, or post comments but not top level posts etc.
the existing admin/not-admin setup would still be replicable by just only having two roles with the appropriate permissions configured.

All that said, I don't actually run an instance or engage with the admin side of things and I've only just joined Lemmy so I'd really appreciate any feedback on the proposed solution!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hi, I’m not sure if this is the right place for this, but its sort of a meta topic so I hope it fits here?

it definitely fits yes, and if absolutely nothing else it's a really good starting point that hopefully other people can build off of and fine tune. this is one of the things we'd ideally want (on this instance) and it'd be a generally good addition to lemmy, imo, since current permissions (and hierarchy of permissions) are... opaque and extremely simplistic, somehow.

[–] TKilFree@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

Thanks, it's good to know this is actually solving a useful problem. I'm used to working on enterprise software where there's always requirements (not necessarily good) managed by someone else so it's a bit of an adjustment haha