lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:

I am swayed by Rose's suggestion that "editor" is not the best term for the "can edit protected pages" user status, so I've changed it back to "sysop". The "can make arbitrary SQL queries" status will be called "developer". A still open question is who can grant these--my take on that is that sysops ought to able to grant and revoke sysop status, and developers should be able to grant and revoke developer status, and Jimbo resolves any disputes that may occur.

I think that sounds right. As a social custom, it should be that sysop status should be granted to pretty much anyone who we know, even if we don't like them, unless they are a total jerk. And developer status should be restricted to just people who really are developing.

In all cases, we should treat roles as sysops/developers as being completely separate from our roles as contributors.

I am also persuaded by Cunc that they should remain on the user list. It's clear that we must have the feature--we tried living without it, and it didn't work. So all comfy anti-elitism aside, the feature is needed, so it stays. Given that, I think secrecy is a far greater sin than elitism. If we have the feature, we should not be ashamed of it or downplay it. Showing those settings on the user page will also encourage newcomers to ask about them, which is a good thing--it gets people involved and interacting with the community, even if that interaction might initially be a complaint.

It might be neat to have a link "What is this?" beside the note on the user list. People can click and there we have our anti-elitist propaganda assuring people that sysop status and developer status is just a technical thing, very much open to them for the asking.

--Jimbo