Groups policy

[Gervase Markham]

MattyT wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 16:40, Gervase Markham wrote:
>>or is it to create a new group for each thing ("canenterbugs" etc.)
>>and ask admins to join their new users to all the groups they'd like
>>them to have access to (either automatically using the regexp or by
>>hand)?
> 
> Avoiding this is the whole reason why the concepts of role and group
> should be separated, and the idea of "system groups" removed.  If you
> have a group, you can say that group gets multiple roles.

That makes sense. Is this part of Joel's "industrial-strength groups" 
patch, or is there another bug open on this?

> The existing system groups will hopefully be made into roles sometime
> before 2.18, but that doesn't mean we can't introduce new roles now. 
> Indeed we did exactly that for insiders I believe.

But the mechanism we used for insiders (a param naming the group which 
has that role) is a bit of a hack, and won't really scale. I'd much 
rather avoid that solution going forward.

Gerv