Editing BPO locking changes (CSM)

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: The database has been locked for maintenance, so you will not be able to save your edits right now. You may wish to copy and paste your text into a text file and save it for later.

The administrator who locked it offered this explanation: This wiki is locked down, as it's really out of date

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
== Solution ==
 
== Solution ==
There are two solutions proposed:
+
Make the voting procedure to unlock BPOs optional. You can keep them on or turn them off completely. By default, BPOs should require a vote to be unlocked. In order to change it, a new vote should be passed succesfully - allowing shareholders to prevent a rogue CEO to hijack the BPOs without their consent.
  
Allow way to unlock/lock BPOs in batches with only 1 vote (instead of a vote for every BPO). This should be the most straightforward solution.
+
If you choose to turn unlock-voting off then the CEO or anyone with the designated role of Technical Security Officer (new role) should be able to unlock/lock the blueprints easily and en mass.
  
The alternative is to make the voting procedure to unlock BPOs optional. You can keep them on or turn them off completely. By default, BPOs should require a vote to be unlocked. In order to change it, a new vote should be passed succesfully - allowing shareholders to prevent a rogue CEO to hijack the BPOs without their consent.
+
Additionally, a way to unlock/lock BPOs in batches is desired.  
 
+
If you choose to turn unlock-voting off then the CEO or anyone with the designated role of Technical Security Officer (new role) should be able to unlock/lock the blueprints easily and en mass.
+
  
 
This solution allows both the current system (which is useful for IPOs and organisations that depend heavily on their shareholders) and a new system that is not quite as secure but a lot faster to use. This system is not really open for abuse since the only way the locking mechanism can be changed is if the shareholders agree to it.
 
This solution allows both the current system (which is useful for IPOs and organisations that depend heavily on their shareholders) and a new system that is not quite as secure but a lot faster to use. This system is not really open for abuse since the only way the locking mechanism can be changed is if the shareholders agree to it.

Please note that all contributions to sdeevelopedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Sdeevelopedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)