Drop the collective-idea for something else, like users+groups
- Dominant language
- Elm
- Stars
- 2.3k
- Forks
- 184
- Avg merge
- 8h 2m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Description
This is a follow up from two issues #367 and #21.
The collective is thought to provide the following:
- clear distinction between set of documents
- allow multiple users to own files; the use-case is a family where everyone should have access to all (most) of the documents
- allow to own the address book
But this concept is not very flexible and seems confusing (see #367 , #21). Maybe (probably) there is a better option hat also provides the above features. This issue exists to explore/discuss these.
A possibility is to migrate to user and groups, as suggested by @MarcSN311 in #21). A collective becomes a "group" and a user can be member of multiple groups. On registration a group with the username is generated to have a start. Most things could stay the same (probably). A user would login only with the user name. The group/context can be switched without re-login. Documents would be owned by a group as before.
Contributor guide
Assessment
This issue has not been assessed yet.