"Frank Shearar" <frank at angband.za.org> wrote:
> SqueakPeople allows the following relationships to projects:
>   None, Admirer, User, Helper, Documenter, Contributor, Developer, Lead 
> Developer.
> 
> SqueakMap too allows relationships between developers and packages. I think 
> these are currently
>   Developer, Maintainer
> yes?

Well, owner (also called maintainer) and co-maintainer.
 
> SqueakSource in turn allows an Admin relationship, and possibly others I've 
> not seen.
> 
> It'd be really nice if we could have one, consistent set of relationships 
> across these different programs. For instance, if someone puts up a new 
> package on SqueakSource it'd be really great if that new package would 
> automagically appear on SqueakMap and SqueakPeople.

If I understand it correctly - it is not necessarily so that a SqS
package should be on SM. And definitely not necessarily on SqP.

> Or if someone becomes a 
> maintainer for a package then that relationship would propogate to all the 
> programs/sites.

Being a co-maintainer on SM means that you can modify the SM information
about the package - nothing more nor less. That does not necessarily
mean the same thing on SqS for example.
 
> frank

The idea with SM from the beginning was to be able to act as a "backend"
for these relationships (and more) in order to keep this information in
one place.

Since I haven't yet implemented the replication mechanism making this
use possible (the idea of simply making local modifications to the map
and then "committing them" to the master) the new sites have created
their own models. And perhaps they would have done so anyway, especially
SqP since it is a borrowed codebase.

It can also be argued that these "packages" are not necessarily the same
concept on these sites. For example, there are numerous packages on SM
which don't exists on SqP.

Nevertheless I have all along said that I am a bit worried about the
fact that some of these concepts are being reimplemented in multiple
sites. Though since I have no clear solution I can at the same time not
be critical. And also, I have been alone in being worried so...

regards, Göran