[geeklog-devel] GSoC 2010 is on

Joe Mucchiello joe at ThrowingDice.com
Mon Feb 1 21:59:23 EST 2010

At 10:21 AM 2/1/2010, Randy Kolenko wrote:
> > * Instead of the existing, and complicated Unix bits, you give the
> > user a dropdown Everyone | Logged In Users | My Friends Only |
> > Other... | Private. Other would allow them to pick a different
> > social network model users would just have "friend requests" and
> > acceptances/rejections.
>I think a simpler way to explain this is to have something like "organic
>groups".  This is something that another "competitive" platform has.
>This way users can create their own social groups and add/remove
>permissions and view to their stories/static pages etc based on those
>This is a concept that would be a foundation for more social
>applications for GL.

You snipped off the part where I said users could create their own ad 
hoc groups. The drop list I was talking about is sort of Facebook 
based. You can create subgroups of your friends and then assign 
permissions to your subgroups. That is what "Other..." does. Other 
pops up a screen with any groups you have created and lets you select 
one, or you can click new group and it let's you create a new group 
on the spot.

But the friendship requirement is necessary. I think it is the best 
way to maintain privacy. Before I can add you to one of my groups we 
have to be friends. Friendship is a two-way street. If I am refuse to 
be your friend, you cannot add me to your ad hoc groups. And 
ultimately, you cannot stalk me. Maximizing user privacy in the face 
of social networking sounds like an oxymoron but it should probably 
be extremely high on the priority list of Geeklog given its 
reputation for security.

>Creating the social group concept would have to extend into the core
>plugins then and also will have ramifications on the search ability.
>This alone would be a GSOC project.

The first project is to make the gl_groups table have a grp_owner 
number(8) and to get core to understand how that works. The 
grp_gl_core field would probably be expanded to include 2 = Hidden 
user group (for the system generated groups) and 3 = user group 
(which the user can create/destroy/modify at will). After that it is 
mostly interface stuff since the core permissions stuff doesn't care 
who edited the group just who belongs to it. I suppose some 
performance testing might be needed as the number of groups someone 
can belong to grows.

Joe Mucchiello
Throwing Dice Games

No virus found in this outgoing message
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus ( - 10.004.142).

More information about the geeklog-devel mailing list