Should the reputation requirements to participate in a stackoverflow knowledge exchange site change as the site evolves?
In normal use you gain reputation by being up voted, either your question or your answer. When an SO site is first created there are realtivley few questions and few answers. This makes it easy to gain reputation so you can better participate in the site.
As a site matures it's more difficult to ask a new question or post a good answer. That makes a barrier of entry for participation steeper. Which also makes it hard to vote for good answers or leave constructive comments (15 and 50 reputation respectively). In effect you are prohibited from being a part of the community because you didn't get in early.
Should the barrier of entry for low impact actions (voting, comments) be lower as the site matures and more users gain moderator like permissions (retags, edits, closes) and higher for high impact moderator like permissions as the site matures? People with previous permissions would be grandfathered in as the barriers changed.
This will enable the moderators to moderate the 'less trusted users' rather than the computer (reputation is a measure of how much the system trusts you) but still enable quality participation a growth in users.
This is less of an issue for dynamic topics that stackoverflow has started with (all computer related) and more of an issue for more stable topics (loomoverflow anybody?).