[matt_kantor]

I think davnn meant a voting mechanism to allow other devs (besides the package's publisher) to vouch for its safety.

At least that's how I interpreted "social safety score".

[jrochkind1]

Ah, I see. I guess that might be interesting. I suspect it would have to get very complicated supporting 'chains of trust' and possibly crypto implementation, to avoid gaming by someone who wanted to make their dangerous code look voted "safe" by lots of people.

[davnn]

Exactly!