I agree with herbert, and one solution would be to ask those people who
which to remain pseudonymous to have a named person who's agreed to be
their proxy co-sign the patch or whatever. That i think accomplishes that
same goal :)
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel
There are good reasons not to require people's "real" name to
On 2014-10-30 at 22:59:45 +0100, Isaac Dupree wrote: participate:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_polic...
Simon PJ often advocates to know people's name as part of creating a friendly community. There are good things about this. It also helps exclude people with less privilege, whom we have few enough of already, if it is a policy.
I like most things about "Developer's Certificate of Origin", though.
However, if we want to adopt the DCO[1] (as used by Linux Kernel development) as a good-faith (and yet light-weight) attempt to track the origin/accountability of contributions it relies on real names to know who is actually making that assertion. Having the DCO signed off by an obvious pseudonym would defeat the whole point of the DCO imho.
Cheers, hvr
[1]: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Document... _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs