Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Developer's Wiki
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:14:58 +0200
Message-ID: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA0FBB7@algol.sollentuna.se>
In-Reply-To: <20060917100538.GA14893@svana.org>
Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Developer's Wiki
Thread-Index: AcbaQSUIFmkdM3zcT5isheZQRUC0agAGewjA
From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net>
To: "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog@svana.org>,
	"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
	"Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com>,
	"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>, <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>,
	"Neil Conway" <neilc@samurai.com>, "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>,
	<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

> Two points I'm not clear about on this thread though:
>=20
> 1. Authorized user: is that someone with an account, or=20
> someone who has been authorized by someone else?

IIRC, the idea was "someone with an account". Basically you add a (very
very small) hurdle so you only get the people who actually *care* to
write things. But if you do care, it's not a lot of work. You also get
traceability, so you can talk to whomever wrote a certain thing.

I don't see any gain in having someone specifically authorize who can
write to it.

//Magnus