Follow

One example of why I hate how software permissions systems frame things. In our project rocket chat, it says prominently next to my name that I am "Admin" and "Owner".

"Admin" I can kind of accept, as I do have all the permissions as I set it up, but "Owner" really feels wrong and suggests to people joining something really misleading about my role.

(Well, I hope I'm not an Owner, or am I?).

Β· Β· 3 Β· 0 Β· 2

@nicksellen What do you think it suggests? IMO it points out that you are an admin that also has access to the underlying infrastructure, i.e. you control the machine the thing runs on.

@Johann150 the "Admin" label maybe... But the "Owner" one is more wrong. What do I own?

But also as @jums pointed out further down the thread, why remind everyone that I am admin with every message.

It conveys a message that I would be uncomfortable with in person (imagining wearing badges on a special hat on my clothes...)

@nicksellen I didn't understand that it's displayed for every message which is a bit strange. I expected it to be displayed on your profile like on Mastodon. I think some transparency of who is in charge should be in place, but a list on some about page would also suffice for that.
As to owning, the idea would come down to you owning the server and thus having more power. And it is differentiated because your role includes appeals, so for example if a user does not concur with an admins actions.

@Johann150 I guess those thoughts are partly why it's confusing. I don't own the server. And it makes now sense to appeal to the owner about bad behaviour of an admin when I am both.

I don't think it's that way because they thought long and hard about all the implications, but that it just fits with many existing assumptions about roles and power.

I don't even want to have admin powers...

@nicksellen I am no legal expert and I do not know the legal system where you live, but to my knowledge in Germany the "owner" of a service is responsible for some things like removing illegal content (in πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ e.g. denial of the Holocaust). So that would be a problem if you were the owner but not an admin. Perhaps "owner" could be paraphrased as "admin-admin"/"super-admin" which merges "owner" and "admin" into one.

And the thing about appealing of course only makes sense if there are other admins.

@Johann150 I don't think the rocket chat permissions are designed with the understanding of every legal system or governance structure possible, they are just some set of features they managed to implement within their scope of understanding, skills, resources, etc...

In my dreams, these governance topics within software would get at least as much attention as features for spying on the users do (not pointing at rocket chat in particular... more generally).

@nicksellen Do you have a better alternative in mind? Maybe "Host"?

@nicksellen hum even admin in my opinion : "I have all the keys people, pay some respect when you speak to me.". The problem is not which label, its the concept of labelling very time you express yourself.

@jums @nicksellen then again, it is good to make power transparent right?

@maxlath @douginamug @jums @nicksellen on the same note, the "PRO" badge that was added a while ago to GitHub, shown even on hovercards. But it can now be disabled, at least.

@jums @douginamug the main point for me here is I don't want any of those powers anyway... but the software doesn't permit that option, it requires that *someone* has them.

I have power, possibly some responsibility, but no accountability, and little transparency (even if it says my role.. what can the person really do with that information?).

@jums @douginamug I removed them via custom CSS now, which rocket chat lets you set, so it changes it for all users. I'm happy with that!

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.coop

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!