SE Workflow

Sorry I am not sure anymore if this is planned in the future

In the past workflow 'Approveal before publishing' was role based.

You needed a role spezfied for approvers.

In small business there are often not enogh people to fill an approver roles. So it might be that you have only 2 poeple working on a web but still want pages to be approved.

Person A can edit and approve pages
Person B can edit and approve pages.

Is there a workflow planned where A could edit and B could approve (but A could not approve his own page even though he is in a role that can approve pages?

Markus 

Hi Markus Berchtold,

This feature is available now. It is the 2-step workflow, and each step could have different roles that can "pass" it.

Dear Georgi

Just to make it clear

a) Now as in 4.0 released or internal builds

b) Two roles
   1)  editor
    2) pubishers

John can be in both roles
Jane can be in both roles

BUT

John can not publish stuff he edited
Jane can not publish stuff she edited

If this is the case this would be such a great improvement over 3.7

Markus

Hi Markus,

Unfortunately this hasn't been implemented in that way..in the workflows we provide. As you probably know though, this can be completely configured :) You may have conditions in the workflow and say - if this author has created the content for review - do show him the publish button for that item. The xamlx customization is done in visual studio right now, but this is going to change. 

Dear Georgi

a) good I asked again to make sure
b) this can be completele configured, not in the SE as to my knowledge
c) I sure think this should be a standard procedure for the two way workflow

Since it is completeley configurable with ease, why don't you guys talk it over and see if this would generally make sence to change the 2 step workflow in that matter.

I am sure everybody will agree on this that it does not make sence that one publisher can publish his own edited sutff. No matter how big the firm and how many people are in a role.

As long as a person is in editor and publisher and you dont grand publishing right to editors then the publisher in the editor role should not be able to publish his own edited stuff (<- I just had to write that down :-))

Hope to see that feature soon.

Markus

PS: This is the problem. You can configure the workflows in any version higher then SE. But akutally probably most bigger firms would have enough people to fill all the roles. And the small once dont have the people and alos not the ability to set workflow themself.

Hi Markus,

Yes..this completely makes sense. 
I think that instead of changing the current configuration of the workflows in SE, we may introduce another type of workflow in that editon - the suggested by you. I would bring this to the team today.

Dear Georgi

That's what I love about Telerik and you guys. If something makes sense your are really listening to customers.

Sure hope your team mates and decition makers can see my point as well that a classic 4-eye approch is simply needed.

Markus

Dear Georgi

Any news on this? Is a true 4-eyes workflow to be expected in Q1 or Q2?

Markus

Hello Markus,

We definitely think that it makes sense, but it's not scheduled before Q3. We will re-schedule it if the demand for this feature grows though. 
Still, it's good to have it the backlog :)

Dear Georgi

a) I would assume since SF has custom workflow abilities it should not be so hard to implment
b) Any chance to see this on PITS so we can vote.

I must agree with someone else that PITS seems to be a Telerik instrument only.

Markus

Hello Markus,

 I agree that the PITS is not very helpful at the moment, and I'll post our plans in the release announcement thread, since there is a discussion on that there. You will see it in PITS once we come up with the plans for the PITS process development. 

The custom workflow can indeed handle this situation.

Thanks Georgi 

For the honest but somewhat sad answer about PITS.

Since a real 4-eyes workflow could be handled by custom workflow I was under the assumption that it would be easy to integrate this into the SE workflow options.

But this does not seem to be true since you are not even planning to include it. I would have thought SF would be 70% less coding for you doing the core as well :-)

Looking forward to the long awaited Q1 release.

Once again many thanks for your honesty. 

Markus