Comment by sokoloff
11 hours ago
Don’t have time to dig deep into it this afternoon, but want to comment to come back but also to suggest an expansion past your stated “one personal and one company” wiki.
I lead two different functional areas within tech and work in a larger tech platform for the parent company of a couple dozen operating companies.
All that to say “I would almost surely be better served by a hierarchy or general graph of wikis rather than just ‘me’ or ‘all 15K employees’.”
Even a 50 person company might benefit from “me”, “my team”, “my department”, and “whole company”.
I agree with the take. This was on the roadmap, but given the responses today, we will make permissions inside the company a bigger priority. To brainstorm, would you want the ability to define teams inside a company as well? I was thinking admins/owners could create teams and select the people they want, and then their permissions
I suspect nearly “any” solution is good enough to get started and learn what users use and like.
In my guessed-at ideal world, assuming the permissions setting isn’t complex, I’d like the ability for a user to define multiple teams and manage them with an easy method. Maybe that’s an API; maybe it’s a periodic ingest of a csv file. If you must have “admins” and “users” (rather than mostly users who can share teams they create), that will be an ok way to start, but I would bias towards “there are a tiny number of true admins but almost everyone is a user and users can share teams with other users”.
We’re very comfortable with storing config data like this in git and it would be great for tech teams to adjust team ownership by commit/pushing csv files, but that might not fit your actual user base (or the purchase-decision-making subset ;) )
I guess you could say, you weren't cimpress-ed