goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:

>Hi all!
>
>First of all - SM1.1 is not here yet, but I am aiming to air an alpha
>version at the end of the week.
>
>Now, that said - as a few of you may be aware SM1.1 will include the
>concept of "accounts" which will enable tons of nice things to come.
>
>Today we have per package:
>	- Author
>	- Maintainer
>	- Registrant
>
>I am keeping author as before but I am simplifying by dropping the
>distinction between registrant and maintainer. I am using the field
>maintainer (ignoring registrant) when migrating to SM1.1 which means
>that I am producing accounts for the current maintainers.
>  
>

That's probably reasonable, although the one instance in which it's 
useful to have a different maintainer versus registrant is when someone 
wants to register a package (usually that someone else authored) to make 
it widely available but does not want to maintain it.  For example, 
Marcus recently registered the Lisp package on SqueakMap, but it has no 
maintainer... there are a bunch of other packages on SM like this.

On the other hand, maybe we want to discourage unmaintained packages as 
much as possible, which you are doing in 1.1 by not allowing a package 
without a maintainer.  This may have an unintended side effect of some 
packages (such as Lisp) never getting on SqueakMap, though, because 
someone may be reluctant to put it up there if they're forced to 
maintain it.

Anyway, something to think about. :-)

Looking forward to the alpha release of SM 1.1!

- Doug