CW | Drive Permission and managment


#1

Hello!
With @skotperez we started a proposal for the Drive permissions and its managment.
Of course this is a big question, also involving many aspects of our governance, but we have a kind of urgency to avoid more data loss.
This debate has been started in the channle #cw_d_infrastructure with contributions of @urbanohumano @artemi_fasebase @Archivox_NMonnot @pascualpg and @bentejui_fasebase
The idea now is to make a proposal to solve this question, and make it effective by the 10th of September 2017 in these weeks we want to open the debate to other contribution, to define also the last questions open (see bottom of this post)

Due to the recent fails we had in the Drive, loss of datas and changes on the folders, we started thinking about the permission we have on the docs.
We also have some reserved files that have sensible datas (for third persons) or contracts and other things that are very important for a project or a circle.
Maybe it is not good that everybody has the same permission to edit all the docs. We have to be transparent but this doesn’t mean that everybody can modify all the documents at the same time.
We could set the permission to everybody to VIEW all the documents, and give specific permissions to the ones who are part of a project to edit.
The permission to edit have to be asked to the coordinators or refents.

THE PROPOSAL:
We set up a dead line to make this main change of permissions. The main folder of CW will be have only VIEW PERMISSION by that date. Permission to edit will be given to who ask for it.

We create a list of people that ask for permission to edit (not necessarily only the coordinators of a project)
These people will be referent to give permission to edit to who ask for it, for each folder (project or circle)

Please fill the following spreadsheet before the deadline of the 10th of september: DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE Permissions lists

DEADLINE FOR THE CHANGE
The 10th of september we will make the main change of permissions.
By that date who wants to be referent for the permissions have to fill the spreadsheet above

DIG INFRASTRUCTURE TEAM FOR THE CHANGE
Anyone is invited to join, up to now the people who are taking care of this are @skotperez and @FrancescoP

PENDING ISSUES!!!
There are many kind of permissions on google Drive, we listed mainly 5 that we are using:

  • OWNER: can do everything (delete or modify)
  • Personal EDITION via mail: only a list of users can edit (depending on email addresses)
  • Personal VIEW via mail: only a list of users can view (depending on email addresses)
  • Anonymous edition: via link (everyone with the link can edit)
  • Anonymous view via link (anyone with the link can view)

Actually we have not a an idea of how the permission has been given, the main difference with via mail permissions (particular/depending on email address) and via link permission (anonymous) is that with the anonymous permission ANYONE can have access to the file, also who’s not part of the CW’s main drive folder.

There are 2 main questions to resolve:

  • How to change recursively the permission of the folder, we can’t go folder by folder to change it
  • There are folders or docs who need a mixed system, particular and anonymous, because there will be people contributing to them outside of CW

We are aware that this change implies the creation of a user guide of Drive, a protocol that everybody have to use

let’s keep going with this, see ya!:rainbow:


#2

Hello guys! =)

Really good and neccessary initiative @FrancescoP and @skotperez :ok_hand:

Couple of thoughs:

  • From my point of view, this is a very core-issue of CivicWise and needs to be develop asap, but also with firm steps. Regarding this I think that the date of 10th of September to make this change is too soon and from my point of view, I will not make the change until we have completly develop that “user guide of drive”. And saying this because, as you (pesco) said, there is a lot of tangencial issues around this permission protocol issue for drive, and I will treat that not as a difficulty, but as an opportunity to go for it and try to improve all the issues that are around drive. Regarding this, I’m thinking about the data protection law or even to rethink and rebuild the google drive folder-structure and try to build a new one, more intuitive and easy to surf on it and find documents, common presentation, or basics for graphics (now that @Pinfairo is going to work on it)

  • Assuming all this, I will suggest to build a small team for this (I think is done as @skotperez and @FrancescoP take the initiative) and I will have a first hangout session to discuss about: specifc goals and timing. I think is has to be a light and easy work, and not make it intense, could be done in 4 or 5 hangout session in which we discuss all te topics around google drive and then, go for it after that and change structure, permission protocol for the drive and whatever issue it will came out through discussion. With this 4 or 5 sessions to go deeper in all the issues and a couple of weeks to make the changes, could a two months process, more or less. I think is not too much and is a very core issue that needs, at least, that amount of time. We can take advantage of this work and try to work combine with the website, try to think about how to link drive to the website for login users, for example…

what do you think @FrancescoP @artemi_fasebase @urbanohumano @Archivox_NMonnot @Archivox_MBerri @skotperez @bentejui_fasebase


#3

I think you are right that it will take a longer time, but we need also to be effective so we thought that maybe it won’t be done everything by the 10th of September, but at least from that point we start communicating it or the team is buildt up and has started some progresses.
Vemos sobre la marcha (as it’s sai in spanish “we’ll se on the run”)

So I agree with the idea of building up a team, as said we already had a first hangout session and here you can find the minutes of the meeting
DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE MEETING MINUTES
I forgot to share it before, mostly is the same text we produced for the text above.
We didn’t set up a next session but maybe it’s time to do it, what do you guys think?

Also I think that it’s correct what you said about making firm steps, I think that this team should be very effective and in less time give a functional solution, also at the same time communicate very well what is going on and create a basic guide.

I would like also to tell you that in the local circle of Valencia we are testing the proposal for the folder with sensible datas in our folder. This is the fastes way to see if it’s working.
by now I can tell you that modifications to permissions seem to be recursive if done by the Owner of the folder
we are also testing the mixed permission system mentioned above, we’ll keep updating you.

In this sense I’ve started to taking notes in a draft for guides and protocols that we started long time ago with @Archivox_NMonnot
I think it’s good that we have a draft with notes and also links to the guide of GDrive to better understand how permissions work.

Let’s continue


#4

For developp the emergency of doing it, few reflexions that came from realities of the Drive, personnal experience of @Archivox_MBerri and me and the way some wisers are using it :

  1. Some very important research has been downloaded on other personnal Drive without asking permissions : this is not values of CivicWise. We are in CW for sharing, asking in an collectiv intelligence, doing it together, construct for the future. Just say : " i’m very interested in your document, is it ok if i use it?" should be the minimum. In that way, permissions are obviously helpfull : first because, of course, we want to share. Second, because we want perhaps sometimes to know why. Is it for continue the work together ? Is it for personnal interest ?

  2. When i arrive in CivicWise, the link to the Drive i was pointing on was host by DemocracyOs, making a copy. That is to say i had got access to the entire Drive to DemocracyOs : tools, research, etc. This has been fixed one year ago cause i told them i’ve got access to all but show obvious problems of security. When DemocracyOs delete the copy of CW cause they need more space on their drive , no access anymore for a lot of wisers that were pointing this false link. See this document CW | COM | INT | Meeting the 04th October 2016 that we made with @FrancescoP : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e7Qcp77__kkfcdEZgeeV9BhE49dhYuZMAB_9QFelkKA/edit#heading=h.szjttt7xm72c

  3. Asking permissions for having an access to projects, researchs, labs is not a lack of inclusivity from CW. As we grow up very fast, it is a necessity for take care about our values. We are open but what is your motivation for the access? Normally the access to CW was to fill a questionnary too by the Google Form way, just to know who is who. I don’t know if it’s always the way to do it as Civicdesign participants come directly to the Slack and can catch an acess to CW drive easily. Most of participants of Civic Design are obviously interested in participativ way but some come for making their own red…you know that. So, asking permission for an access is exactly the same than fill a google form for enter in CW and it’s normal i think : show the motivation of all wisers. "Are you interested in ?"the more we grow, the more this question will be important.

  4. When we start to change the name on Slack and the Drive for a better access and understanding of our protocols and CW structure, we didn’t wait so much time cause was a necessity. Yes, once again, protocols are VERY important but it’s a personnal point of view. It’s a question that appeared from the beginning of CW with @Fausto in March 2015.

In conclusion, i will say with @FrancescoP : Vemos sobre la marcha . Let"s make a protocol, share it and do it . 10th september seems allright.


#5

Concrete example:
The 08th august 2016, coming from Civic Design, i wanted to know more about CivicWise : governance, historic, birth, values, who is who. I began a research on all documents in the drive and the forum. This, because i’ve got an access to all and for me was amazing this freedom. 3 months of research. Hapyness and finish by a document that i share in CW.
Let’s imagine now that in that time that Drive is closed :

  1. I ask to the owner of the Drive if i can catch an access cause i’m very interested by the historic of CW and its structure and that i will make a final document sharing to all of wisers. Can be part of birth of a Lab too.

  2. This access could have been just in lecturer and no modifications of documents

Pretty easy to do and just relevant about my motivations for CW and what i can give back to CW.
What it means?

  1. I have to know that i need to ask permission > Protocols are there

  2. If i need to have an access to all drive, i need to know who i need to contact > Protocols

  3. If i need an access for a project, normally the Workteam is already done and governance is clear. The access is clear from Slack . Perhaps we need for the moment a SlackBot : " remember, if you need access for a projetc, etc" and perhaps a special access to a Slack Channel #CW_DriveAccess

That was just some thoughts from our personnal point of view wisers. Hope can be usefull. Whatever, adelante !


#6

Trying to keep going and regarding the contributions made by now, this is how I see it:

There are 2 levels of data/information [General CivicWise info and Projects] with 2 different situation each [Sensitive data and Knowdledge]:

LEVEL 1: CivicWise’s data/info

  • Sensitive data: Data which is dangerous to be completely open for anyone to edit. Let’t say accountability of a circle. This type of data shouldn’t be open for anyone to edit, but it’s really important to be open for anyone to read following our transparency.

  • Knodledge data: General knowdledge of CivicWise (from my point of view) should be ALWAYS COMPLETELY OPEN, even to edit. I’m thinking here on this general info of CW story gevernance that you @Archivox_NMonnot mentioned, or power points used by wisers, for example, or the branding files (once we have it finished with the website project). This kind of info should be very easy to get and always open to read or edit. This doesn’t mean that is not secured by any licence. What we can do is to have this kind of info secured by default with a P2P licence. Maybe when you fill the form to get inside to the website the form ask you to accept the licence for all this contents. The P2P licence comes from @skotperez, he shows me some weeks ago and I think is very interesting to think about this… What is interesting of this licence is that has a “commercial” licence which specify that only those people who give shomething back to the common can use it. The issue here will be to define what does it mean “give something back to the common” in CivicWise.

LEVEL 2: Data/Info from an specific project

  • Sensitive/Private data: Data or information which can not be public because is secured by privacy policy law. Let’s figure: telefone numbers from third person (understanding third person as person outside the workgroup of that project)
  • Knodledge data: As projects belong to people and not to CivicWise as organitation, it make sense that are those people who has the right to decide how to share the knowdledge of “their” project. Here I think make more sense to me this new google drive protocol that you are suggesting in which people outside the project have to ask to get to edit the info. What we can define here is a minimun level of sharing. So all the projects develop on CivicWise should be done with a minimun P2P licence which assure that the work is giving something back to the common and is been developed by CivicWise values.

Seguimos! :+1:


#7

Hello everybody
maybe its off topic but I wanted to remember that there is a draft for all the protocols and tool of the platform, we can take note of all this proposal and try to build it up in a collective proposal, sin the forum is good to debate but it’s better to start the action.

here it goes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LihhrGWj4ujPzzxssn34SJrDc-W_xKVWXj3wi_okQq8/edit#heading=h.i5y7psr8m2e1

I have already linked up here (I found out reading back the posts…) but anyway i’ll leave it here… sorry for repeating but I think we have a lot of proposal and we could start making order


#8

Agree with you @FrancescoP, it is time for action. Let’s find some time and fix the permission problems in Drive.

At the same time, I’m working in a long term solution: i’m testing Nextcloud. Soon we’ll be able to test it in some pilot project.