Alan Burlison wrote:
> Glynn Foster wrote:
>
>> They're called a Contributor too, but they have no attributes.
> As I explained in the past, we are not storing sets of per-application
> rights for each member in the database, we are storing users ,
> collectives and the relationships (roles) between the two.
>
In addition to the other reasons bandied around, this seems to argue
pretty strongly for keeping the collectives called "Participant"
and "Contributer" distinct.
Does the following user model work for you, Alan? Glynn?
When their peers feel so motivated, a Participant can be
elevated to Contributer status on a per-project/user-group/
community basis.
-John
