Skip to content

docs: draft the German ChurchTools forum post on structure-as-code - #95

Closed
2000game wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/forum-post-structure-as-code
Closed

2000game wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/forum-post-structure-as-code

Conversation

@2000game

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adds docs/forum/2026-08-strukturen-als-code.md — the German forum post that has been the goal behind the recent docs work.

This is a draft in the repo, not a published post. It carries a pre-publish checklist rather than assuming it is ready to go.

What the post does

Aimed at a general ChurchTools-admin audience, in German with Du-Ansprache:

  1. Why — five questions clicking cannot answer (audit trail, repeatability for the next campus, a safe rehearsal, drift detection, previewing a change).
  2. Show me — the same zero-id config and real ct plan output as the README.
  3. Scope — what is managed, and the two boundaries stated plainly: people and memberships are never touched, and only explicitly declared or adopted resources are visible at all.
  4. Guardrails — never deletes, backup before writes, typed confirmation on protected environments, host-bound state files, tokens out of the repo.
  5. Dev → prod — the rehearsal workflow, including that the plan header surfaces a version skew between instances before you promote.
  6. Two findings worth sharing — that rights reach a group through two independent layers (and the per-group UI only shows one), and that person-status grants are the instance-wide lever. Both stated in the deliberately non-technical form, claiming only what was verified live.
  7. Questions — to the community, and one to ChurchTools about the "preliminary" permission / dynamic-group endpoints we depend on.

Deliberately separate from #91

#91 wants a technical post that extracts precise answers about dataId: -1, GET /statuses, and which permission domains are really writable. This post wants to start a conversation. Combining them would weaken both, so the draft says so explicitly and leaves #91 open.

Open decision, flagged in the draft

eqrm/ct-cli is private. The post is written so it works with no repo link at all; the checklist puts the choice (post without a link / open the repo first / link a short public description) in front of a human rather than resolving it silently.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01KPxjSEkqMiU7WE3vg6C3am

The general-audience post — why versioned desired state beats clicking, what a
config and its plan look like, the guardrails, and the dev→prod rehearsal — with
an explicit pre-publish checklist. Deliberately kept separate from the
person-status deep dive (#91): that one exists to get precise answers out of
ChurchTools, this one exists to start a conversation, and merging them would
weaken both.

Draft only — the checklist covers the open call on linking the (currently
private) repo, the human read-through, and the no-instance-data check.

Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01KPxjSEkqMiU7WE3vg6C3am
@2000game 2000game closed this Aug 13, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant