@Viola @rene.brisbane @Wattlemoss
So here’s my summary of the above, and suggested updates to mandates and process which account for the permission levels:
STAGING vs LIVE
‘Development’ is the same as ‘Staging’ site ie where changes can be checked before pushing live
‘Production’ site is the same as ‘Live’ site ie where approved changes are pushed to live
SIDE NOTE: I imagine due to permissions it technically possible to make changes direct to the live site, but we don’t want this happening due to chance to cause errors on the live site + requirements to keep staging as close to a direct copy of live as possible.
- ‘Maintainer’ (from a permission pov, not a role pov) are the only ones who can deploy from staging to live.
Devs update code (simple eg copy update (previously ‘Content Updator’) or complex eg functionality update (‘Developer’)) > request push to live > ‘Maintainer (permission level)’ deploys from staging to live.
PURPOSE OF ROLES (as I see it)
- Liaison with groups external to website
- Liaison with XR members re requests
- Raises tickets in Gitlab
- Checks on staging
- Development tasks simple eg copy update (‘Content Updator’)
- Development tasks complex eg functionality (‘Developer’)
SUGGESTED ROLES / PROCESS
No need for ‘Content Updator’ as permissions are the same for Dev as for CU. The mandates were differentiated by the type of tickets each can action. I agree to remove the Content Updator and have ‘Developer’ only. Tickets can be picked by any ‘Developer’ who has the adequate knowledge to perform the task ie simple or complex.
I do think it make sense for WL rather than EC to check tickets have been completed satisfactorily via check on staging site, given they have the full knowledge / background on the request.
Suggestion for change to process: following ticket approval by a WL, they are moved to an ‘approved, for push to live’ board on Gitlab.
Anyone with ‘Maintainer’ permission can then push live.
Maintainer permissions can be given to ‘Developers’ who have the appropriate level of experience.
If agreed, we would either need to expand the ‘Developer’ mandate to include simple updates.
This keeps the EC focussed on their priorities as outlined above.
We have our website meeting tomorrow (Fridays at 11.00 AEST (Brisbane) 12.00 AEDT (Sydney/Mel), 11.30 (Adelaide), 9.00 am (Perth) ) so shall we discuss then?