Avi Bryant wrote:

> 
> But that's no fun.  There seems to be a lot of talk about what might and 
> might not work, when we could just be trying it out.  What's to lose?  
> Say we build an "unstable" stream that ends up being a complete mess - 
> the only people that are affected are those that were tracking that 
> stream, and they can't have been expecting much anyway.
> 
> I suggest we try The Simplest Possible Thing, which is probably this: 
> set up an alternate update stream, publish a code snippet that lets 
> anyone point their image to it, and hand out the upload password to 
> everyone with Master certification on SqP.  Then step back and see what 
> happens.  My guess is that, like wikis, the system will be more robust 
> than you give it credit for: if someone publishes a bad update, someone 
> else will quickly remove it, and life will go on.

Thank you for stating my opinion so eloquently :-) ;-)

Except for the fact that I never registered on SqP, but that's a 
different topic ;-)

Michael