This question already has an answer here:
I'm a member of the community (StackOverflow). This community is here to discuss that community. Why, even though I'm a 10k+ user on the real community, am I treated like a second-class citizen here? It seems kind of cliquey. I want to volunteer my time to StackOverflow, but not usually through meta discussions. But when something hinders my ability to work on SO, I want to be able to discuss it here without being stifled.
I also understand that this community has unique considerations from a moderation standpoint. An SO moderator might not make a good meta.SO moderator. I suggest we draw a line between permissions that facilitate participation and those that facilitate moderation. Here are the ones I think primarily facilitate participation:
- Leave comments
- Vote up
- Flag offensive
- Edit community wiki posts
- Vote down
- Show total up and down vote counts (because it allows you to guage the actual popularity of an opinion).
Allowing anybody to leave comments was a great first step. My proposal is that the above permissions would either be granted to all people who have the equivalent permission on SO (or even another sister site?) or to all people (i.e. no rep requirement).
Incidentally, since votes in SO often are used to guage the popularity of a suggestion, I don't think there should be penalties for downvoting but that's another, related topic.
It just makes no sense to me that you can have people that have full participation rights on meta.SO even though they have never really participated on SO, meanwhile I'm a very active member on SO and am hindered from talking about it here. It's like having a town hall meeting but only inviting the people who hang around town hall.
To sum up some of the comments, in reality much of what I'm talking about you already get from account association so I'd be totally satisfied if we lowered the vote down and vote split rep requirements to 100.