[FEATURE] Remove special owner role

[Kernald]

Is your feature request related to a problem?

With the fine-grained permission system, the server owner role feels a bit odd. It also grants permissions that are currently unavailable in any other way as far as I can tell, e.g. deleting users.

Describe the solution you'd like

I think it would make sense adding fine-grained permissions for the specific actions gated behind is_server_owner, and eventually remove this flag entirely.

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Where would this feature be implemented?

• Web App
• Mobile App
• Server
• Documentation

Additional context

The reason I started looking into this is that I would like to, eventually, be able to grant a set of permissions through OIDC group claims, allowing for user management to be fully managed by the OIDC provider rather than having the first user being auto-magically declared owner.

[aaronleopold]

I sat on this for a bit to collect my thoughts and I think this is very much aligned with the direction I want to take Stump (which is why I added it to the project earlier). If the is_server_owner flag becomes nothing more than a signal for immutable (or at least transferable) ownership, I think that works. I'd want to get more consensus within the user base before fully removing it, though.

In my head, I think the big thing I'd want to sort out first is cleaning up some funk in what exists currently for the permissions model, mostly the inconsistent granularity and some of the implied/non-assignable permissions you mentioned. Like how some have ManageX and others have the full CreateX/UpdateX/DeleteX breakdown. This should also be an opportunity to start addressing #875, shifting away from opt-out access and towards opt-in (at least for the content, e.g. here).