Forum .LRN Q&A: Re: .LRN administrators group UI

Collapse
Posted by Nima Mazloumi on
I am not sure if this fits to the discussion here but I think it would be great if we could allow a class/community admin to access the sitemap of his group and to install not integrated applications on the one hand and to give rights to individuals for some applications. This would enable an admin to delegate some work to group members. If we could in the long-term offer an admin portlet or better an customized control-panel page to those members who have admin privileges to some applications would be great.

Regarding dotlrn-wide admins: I think this is very useful. Difference installations of dotLRN could run on the same server in a decentralized way and a sitewide admin at the IT department could take care of server maintenance while dotlrn admins are responsible for their dotlrn instance.

Collapse
Posted by Deirdre Kane on
With my users, I would not want them in the site map because the majority of them would not understand the interface and are likely to do more harm than good.  I would rather wait for an admin portlet interface to allow them to make those choices.

In reference to Nima's second paragraph, I guess I don't understand the "dotlrn admin" role enough to that it fits what Nima describes: "a sitewide admin at the IT department could take care of server maintenance while dotlrn admins are responsible for their dotlrn instance."  Yes, that would be great, but i didn't understand the description in that way.  Plus, the site wide admin, at least as i play the role here, does not do the server maintenance.  The site wide admin creates the subject, communities and classes, users, etc.  So, would the new dotlrn-admin do all that with these changes?