#4797 NORM Future : Need a way to reduce the scope of a shared activity (was: sharing is too easy and dangerous)

[Zarro Boogs per Child]

#4797: Need a way to reduce the scope of a shared activity
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  AlbertCahalan     |       Owner:  Eben          
      Type:  enhancement       |      Status:  new           
  Priority:  normal            |   Milestone:  Future Release
 Component:  interface-design  |     Version:                
Resolution:                    |    Keywords:                
  Verified:  0                 |    Blocking:                
 Blockedby:                    |  
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Changes (by Eben):

 * cc: daf, marco (added)


Comment:

 I'm limiting the scope of this ticket, as several aspects of it
 (specifically, the fact that it's much less dangerous in a versioned
 Journal, which is a planned feature), will be taken care of down the line.
 The one big concern discussed here is the notion of reducing the scope of
 a collaboration.

 The problem with implementing this is that, once invited, participants all
 share the activity_id which defines the collaboration, and all have access
 to the public key for the activity.  As more are invited or the sharing
 scope increases, more and more people receive this information.

 What then would it mean to reduce the scope?  It doesn't seem possible to
 do so without changing the activity_id, so that there is an ongoing
 collaboration around the old activity_id, as well as a new (and smaller
 scoped) one.  If we take this approach, reducing the sharing scope would
 effectively "break" the chain of activity history, since that has also
 been tied to the activity_id.  Should these be two different things (a
 collaboration_id and an activity_id) which are usually 1-1 but sometimes
 not?  On the other hand, a means of reducing the scope could be to achieve
 the same effect manually, by going to the Journal, duplicating the entry
 (the duplicate would ''not'' be shared by default: it would be private and
 have a new activity_id), and subsequently sharing that with a smaller
 subset?  Or, finally, should it be possible to stop the activity, and then
 select "Resume with" > "A Smaller Group".  (That is, the resume with menu
 would have two separate functions....resume this instance with a different
 activity....or resume this instance with a different scope.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/4797#comment:8>
One Laptop Per Child <http://laptop.org/>
OLPC bug tracking system