I agree with Frank. I don't think that it would take much to have two 
(or more) skill sets (or roles) to base permissions on, and it would 
obviate the need for self-policing.

I'd like to see not only the trust metrics we've got now, but also a 
rating system which grades the documentation part of products. I 
spend a bit of time on the Swiki trying to make sure that the Network 
parts of Squeak have decent documentation. Then people that want to 
use Squeak can find what they  need to know on the swiki rather than 
coming here to ask questions. (It's not that coming here to ask 
questions is bad.)


  Jon Hylands wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:40:08 -0000, "Frank Shearar"
><Frank.Shearar at rnid.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>  That doesn't follow. Say you're very skilled with proofreading and 
>>editing, with only a cursory knowledge of Smalltalk. Thus, you're 
>>eminently qualified to WikiGnome, but don't have a grasp of the 
>>community coding standards, and thus shouldn't (yet) be allowed to 
>>push changesets to the update stream.
>>
>>  _I_ sure as heck am not conversant enough with Squeak to try push 
>>changesets to the update stream (in general) even if I could.
>
>I think my brother's point was that someone who is good enough at Wiki
>updating to be accepted by the community as a WikiGnome but isn't a
>SqueakGnome should have enough self control to not go pushing change sets
>anyways, so we probably don't need that level of granularity on the
>permissions...
>

-- 
		----------------------------------------------------
Source code in files. How quaint. -- Kent Beck