Why does "asset" role contain "model_manager"

[mcconnellsj]

I am struggling to understand why OOTB the asset role contains "model_manager".

We have a small number of people who are able to create and edit models - they have been given the role "model_manager" in their group.

But we have a larger set of people (some folks in 2nd line) who are able to edit assets.  But giving them this role also allows editing of models.

Logically I think it should be other way around.

Would rather not go down the road of creating a custom role - too much headache in amending ACLs etc ...

Would rather stay OOTB - how can acheive this?

Thanks

(Even worse, "asset" contains "contract_manager" - why?)

[Brian Lancaster]

They most likely determined that if someone need to update assets they also need to be able to update models.  I'm not sure about contact_manager.  You do not need to create custom ACLs.  Instead go into the asset role and remove these two roles and then create another group to give a smaller group of users access contacts and models.

[mcconnellsj]

We have support staff who adjust things like IP address, location and other technical details.

In no way that means they can amend the model (wrongly!).

You think okay to remove OOTB roles from asset?

It is a tempting fix but worried about future upgrade issues.

S.

[Brian Lancaster · Accepted solution]

I have done this before with ITIL as companies I have worked for did not want the ITIL user to be able to do stuff like create templates.  I have never see this cause issue with upgrades.  However that does not mean there is no potential so it is something you will always have to remember to test. 

[mcconnellsj]

Great - thanks Brian.