Richard Wackerbarth writes:
I agree that it might be messier. But it still might be cleaner if you want the moderators, etc. to have all of the "subscription options"
We don't. Some are meaningless (notMeToo, noDups), some should not be available (noMail -- at least not if a vacation facility is available).
I don't contest that there are strong similarities between a "list of moderators" and a "mailing list of subscribers". What I'm saying is that they're not the same, there are several variations on the theme, and we must strongly consider deriving them from a more general type.
I don't think this will fit users' models of the moderator and owner roles. Mailing lists have moderators, not an auto-generated associated mailing list containing only the moderators.
That all depends on how you present it, not on how you implement it. IIRC, the list of moderators is a roster, just like the subscribers. A different template can make two rosters appear to be quite different.
The developers are users too, though. I think the implementation, not just the presentation, should correspond to our notions of "what things are."
Steve