I agree with the notion of a "feedback" or "comment" privilege at the acs-kernel level (I've been arguing for a much smaller set of perms in general for a long time and am not about to change my mind now!)
But I dislike having it a child of "read". While in general we may feel that our sense of "community" should allow anyone who can read an object to comment on it (if comments are allowed at all), I do not believe the toolkit should impose this paradigm.
I'd much rather do something like have dotLRN have "feedback" set on itself for all registered users when it is mounted (which it can do via the APM post instantiation callback) and have packages then check to see users have this privilege.
We could also have the main site set up the same way.
This would make the default case be that anyone can comment on an item they can read but would allow one to, say, mount a subsite, break inheritance, and then assign "feedback" to a subset of users.
I don't see that providing this level of flexibility is a bad thing.
