[Koha-bugs] [Bug 11889] Disown a list

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=11889

--- Comment #32 from Christopher Brannon <cbrannon at cdalibrary.org> ---
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #23)
> At the moment you can't transfer list ownership - so the staff patron would
> get stuck with the lists of the deleted patron until they delete them. It
> would be good to have an option to do it, but I think that would be a new
> bug.

The subject of this bug is to disown a list.  The heart of this bug is to
transfer ownership of a list.  I think this patch needs to focus on this topic
as a whole and not as a piece.  Transferring ownership because the original
owner is deleted is only a piece of this puzzle, and if it only focuses on that
one piece, a lot of people are going to be annoyed when ownership is
transferred and there isn't much that can be done about it besides deleting it.
 I think a mechanism needs to be in place to move the owner before or during
deletion.

Perhaps what can be done is to setup a button on the list to transfer
ownership.  If it is the patron, they can have the option to transfer it to
someone it is already shared with.  They get to pick.  And it is a request to
the new patron in which they have to accept or decline, with the ability to add
a quick note.  If they accept, ownership is transferred.  If they decline, the
owner is notified.

I think a superlibrarian should also have the ability to transfer, with the
same options, but they get the ability to chose any patron to send the request
to.

Another approach for patrons being deleted with shared lists is to have the
disowned list be listed in a group of unowned shared lists.  A transfer does
not necessarily have to occur when the patron/staff account is deleted.  Then a
superlibrarian or staff with appropriate permissions can use the transfer tool
to ask someone if they will take ownership, or they can choose to delete it if
they decide the list does not need to be kept.

Another question arises...does a shared list have to be owned?

If a list is shared or public, couldn't it remain unowned?  Maybe it is a part
of an unowned list, in which a superlibrarian could either transfer ownership,
or discard if needed.  But if the sole purpose of a list is to be public, does
it have to have an owner to keep being public?  Of course it does if it is
being modified.  Otherwise, if there is just some way to get to and manage
unowned lists, do they have to reattach to someone to keep being public/shared?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.