Topic on Talk:Requests for comment/Page protection as a component

The page makes this assertion:

Wikipedia, for example, would be better served by a gated trunk model similar to the workflows used in w:DVCS development. In other words, "Kill the 'View Source' button" and always enable editing, even if the user's changes are saved to a sandbox and do not automatically update the public-facing default article contents. It is already possible to do something similar with Extension:FlaggedRevs.

However such a feature has absolutely nothing to do with the protection model. Moving protection into an extension doesn't help one bit to make this feature possible. In fact you could probably already develop it using the hooks we have available.

I've reverted your change to the RFC; please feel free to justify the deletion further, or better yet make changes or restructure without deleting the text.

The paragraph gives a concrete example of a feature which, in order to make sense, would basically have to disable a large portion of core functionality in order to work properly, so I see it as an appropriate statement among a list of shortcomings that my patch is designed to address. The built-in protection model is opposed to gated trunk because it prevents editing and creation of certain titles, neither of which should happen in gated trunk. In other words, if a person does write the gated trunk extension, it will have a lot of code which has nothing to do with gated trunk, but only exists to reverse the changes made in the name of page protection.