Page MenuHomePhabricator

Policy to define who can move cards in a workboard
Closed, DeclinedPublic


Reported upstream:

There doesn't seem to be any policy for moving cards in a workboard. As long as workboards are visible, All Users (registered) can move them, unless I have missed something. It's not the Can Edit policy for a project, neither for a task.

In projects where a workboard is maintained, the position of the cards might contain a lot of meaning for the developer team. It's not funny if overnight someone came and played with your workboard. It's even less funny if it was not even a game but an intentional statement, a difference of opinions, a protest, etc.

Wikimedia developers and product owners ask how can they protect their board so only the team gets to decide where the cards sit. In Trello and Mingle they are in control. We have no precedents of abuse in Phabricator so far, but looking at our history with Bugzilla I will not be surprised the morning we find a first precedent.

For a simple UI solution, and as long as workboards are part of projects, it would make sense that the Can Edit policy of a project would define who can move the cards of the related workboard. It already defines who can edit the columns themselves.

Event Timeline

Qgil raised the priority of this task from to Medium.
Qgil updated the task description. (Show Details)
Qgil changed Security from none to None.
Qgil moved this task from Backlog to Wikimedia requests on the Phabricator (Upstream) board.
Qgil added subscribers: Qgil, Deskana, Maryana, atgo.
Qgil lowered the priority of this task from Medium to Low.Dec 2 2014, 9:11 AM

Upstream agrees with the idea and has triaged the task as Normal. I don't see us putting own resources to fix this in the short term. Lowering our own priority.

Aklapper lowered the priority of this task from Low to Lowest.Feb 7 2016, 10:25 PM

Changing to lowest priority as per upstream discussion.

In fact, this was a request made by some WMF before their move (mainly from Trello) to Phabricator. After a year or more, is anybody still requiring this feature? Has there been any problem for not having it?

I don't think this is really causing any problems.

+1. Seems like something that can be dealt with if it comes up.

Qgil claimed this task.

Thank you for the quick feedback. Since I created this task, I will resolve it as Declined. Feel free to reopen if there is a tangible need for it.

Also declined in upstream: explains what's possible or not currently.