+1, and this is the main thing keeping us on another tool. We're an agency and run client posts through several approval stages before anything publishes. What we'd need:
Approval steps in a set order. Each step can have more than one approver, and for each step we choose whether everyone has to approve or just one. For example, our last step is "the client's director OR their rabbi": whoever answers first decides, and the other person just gets notified.
Outside approvers who don't need an account. Our clients approve from an email link. They shouldn't need a Zernio seat or a login.
Approve or reject with comments. Comments should be attached to the post and kept with its version. Rejecting sends the post back to draft.
Resubmitting after changes. When we edit a rejected post and resubmit it, approval starts over. Links from the old round should stop working, so nobody approves the old version.
A draft-only role that can't publish. The same thing Simon asked for: a member can create drafts but can't schedule or publish until the post is approved.
Approvals in the API, MCP and webhooks. Submit for approval, approve or reject, and get the approval status and comments through the API and MCP. Webhook events for submitted, approved, rejected and resubmitted. We automate everything, so if approvals only exist in the dashboard, we can't use them.
A record of who approved what. Who approved or rejected each version, when, and their comments.
Simon Coton
•
Jul 11
To go with this - permissions on a member should be set to “draft-only" so it lets a member create drafts but blocks them from publishing/scheduling directly to the platform before approval
Anna Cumi
•
Nov 4, 2025
I think it's important that when we invite someone with a review role, we can choose which profile they can access.
Log in to comment and vote
Comments3
Illia Sapryga
Sep 26
+1, and this is the main thing keeping us on another tool. We're an agency and run client posts through several approval stages before anything publishes. What we'd need:
Approval steps in a set order. Each step can have more than one approver, and for each step we choose whether everyone has to approve or just one. For example, our last step is "the client's director OR their rabbi": whoever answers first decides, and the other person just gets notified.
Outside approvers who don't need an account. Our clients approve from an email link. They shouldn't need a Zernio seat or a login.
Approve or reject with comments. Comments should be attached to the post and kept with its version. Rejecting sends the post back to draft.
Resubmitting after changes. When we edit a rejected post and resubmit it, approval starts over. Links from the old round should stop working, so nobody approves the old version.
A draft-only role that can't publish. The same thing Simon asked for: a member can create drafts but can't schedule or publish until the post is approved.
Approvals in the API, MCP and webhooks. Submit for approval, approve or reject, and get the approval status and comments through the API and MCP. Webhook events for submitted, approved, rejected and resubmitted. We automate everything, so if approvals only exist in the dashboard, we can't use them.
A record of who approved what. Who approved or rejected each version, when, and their comments.
Simon Coton
Jul 11
To go with this - permissions on a member should be set to “draft-only" so it lets a member create drafts but blocks them from publishing/scheduling directly to the platform before approval
Anna Cumi
Nov 4, 2025
I think it's important that when we invite someone with a review role, we can choose which profile they can access.