Thread:Talk:ResourceLoader/V2 testing/Questions about permission model and developer workflow

Is it correct to say that it's our goal to ensure that we have a pretty clean flow from getting your feet wet by writing a user script, to implementing a proper gadget, to getting that gadget officially accepted and possibly even activated by default?

If so, are there elements of the current permission model and workflow which present potential for friction?

More specifically:
 * If I'm not mistaken, MediaWiki: namespace edit permission is managed through the 'editinterface' permission, which in Wikimedia wikis is only given to users with sysops-or-higher access privileges. Would this present a barrier for a non-sysop developer to prepare their gadget for proper i18n? If so, how could we reduce that barrier?


 * With the current permission model, it looks like higher permission users (gadgetmanagers) have to perform work on behalf of lower permission users (gadgetauthors). Alternatively, might it make sense to enable some kind of gadget submission workflow where a gadget author can use all the same forms that a gadget manager can, but not activate the gadget (except perhaps for personal testing purposes)? This would mean that a gadget author could successfully take a gadget very close to activation, awaiting only review and acceptance by a gadget manager.

If we can build a workflow that makes it easy to do the Right Thing without jumping through hoops or obtaining extra permissions, it seems likely that we can get more casual user script authors to adapt their scripts to best practices and publish them through a shared repository.