"Not necessarily. There is some complex mathematics involved[....] Basically a bucket of points is poured into the network by the roots, and it flows according to certification level. There are also sinks, and the whole shebang results in the cert list.
It could be that it currently works that way, but it is certainly not a rule appearing somewhere in the flow algorithm."
- Cees de Groot http://macos.tuwien.ac.at:9009/409183724.asHtml
Imagine someone who tries to join the Squeak community but has too low of a reputation to be allowed by the system. Aren't they going to be a little mystefied about the reason? Won't they wonder whether they are truly not Squeaky enough, versus not persistent enough in pestering people? Similarly, when someone gets added, what will existing members think? Will they feel confident that even one person in the community took a close look? Won't they wonder, just a little, if the new member merely pestered everyone until someone bumped them in?
A traditional membership system would involve at least one person in the community taking a serious look at each applicant. Frequently, there would additionally be a committee that takes a moderate look once the initial person is satisfied. This approach has advantages in both directions. The existing community knows that any new person has been reviewed thoroughly by *someone*, as opposed to getting a pile of reputation bumps by a bunch of people not really paying attention. Further, the applicant gets someone to interact with closely, so that they know what they are lacking if there is a problem.
This latter approach is used extraordinarily widely in existing communities. As just a few quick examples, it is used for:
- getting a Ph.D. - becoming a Methodist minister - earning a black belt - becoming a Debian developer
Anyway, none of this answers the question of who is in the *initial* member set. Using a reputation system still requires picking an initial set of members. Who do we pick?
-Lex