Isn't. This the same as when the user who created the item is removed from the web site?

It's is just an informational field. Nothing is broken if you don't select a user there. So imho is working as expected.

It's fine for me, it shouldn't be a problem. As I said, I reopened a separate issue just because I have been asked to do it...

Set to "closed" on behalf of @franz-wohlkoenig by The JTracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/15101

close as Expected Behaviour.

It may be expected but that doesn't necessarily make it right. IMO we really need to review our data model and ensure our PHP code matches the data schema and the data schema has sensible configurations (like fields which are supposed to be foreign keys should not have a DEFAULT 0 type statement).

Created by isn't just informational. It can have ACL implications.

Set to "open" on behalf of @franz-wohlkoenig by The JTracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/15101

reopened as "Needs Review" in Issue Tracker.

If you remove the ability to set the author to none (and.i get the logic) you also have to address what to do when a user is deleted from a site and they are an author. The same logic/acl issue applies to both cases.

Created and modified are fine as nullable fields IMO. It just needs to be better communicated what this means and the code should actually null the field instead of using a 0 value (if proper foreign keys were used, the insert/update queries would fail with that because there isn't a 0 foreign key to the users table).

IMO they are related problems, but not exactly the same thing. I don't see any benefits of allowing the user to save an article without author. So first of all the user should not be able to set the author id to none.
To handle orphan items maybe a solution could be to develop a functionality, available only to Super Users, to batch change the author ID only on orphan items.

I don't see any benefits of allowing the user to save an article without author.

There is also no benefit in enforcing an author since technically it is not needed. So to each their own.
Plus we don't need special code for when users are deleted, which by itself is a benefit.

Of course @mbabker is right that it should be a "NULL" value instead of 0. But for some (unknown to me) reason in Joomla land coders think all fields should be defined as "NOT NULL".

Can Maintainers decide how to go on with this Issue?

Also besides the case of

• owning user is deleted

that will need to be handled

There is the case of

• content submited by guest users (via help of 3rd party extension)

ACL can allow the above
guest users have ACL core.create and submit via a form with captcha
but do not have ACL core.edit.state to publish the content

Actually I like the option to have "no user" as the author. This allows me to have all "public service" content from a site to be out of the user profiles (e.g. if you use community builder and you have an overview of articles from an author). For me, this is a feature that I have come to appreciate.

I've filed a separate bug for not being able to filter on "no author" though: https://issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/18434

If I understand it right, the open question is to have NULL instead of 0 when selecting "no user" as author. It is something that can / should be solved? If not for J3 maybe for J4? Or is a "won't fix"?

set label:"Information Required"

for me a won't fix....cause we don't have foregin key yet

Thank you for raising this issue.

Joomla 3 is now in security only mode with no further bug fixes or new features.

As this issue doesn't relate to Joomla 4 it will now been closed.

If we are mistaken and this does apply to Joomla 4 please open a new issue (and reference this one if you wish) with updated details for testing in Joomla 4.
cc @zero-24