Let me summarise the main arguments against the restriction:
1. It stops people from contributing [..] 2. Inconsistency [..] 3. Privacy issues [..]
4. It inteferes with people's freedom - who has the right to dictate what name a person (or, for that matter, a group of people) should be known as?
5. It encourages dishonesty: if you want to contribute but not reveal your real name, you have the option to lie about it, and can be fairly confident your lie will never be called.
+1 for allowing nicks.
Another +1 from me. I must admit that I had never really thought about this restriction, but the arguments against the restriction clearly convince me. I have heard no valid arguments in favour of the restriction. I can see that there are advantages to requiring real names, but that only makes sense if it is enforced (and I certainly don't advocate that). The way it is now, where some people who just silently use pseudonyms get accounts, and others, who are not willing to lie, are rejected, is very bad. If people are really worried about trust, then a comment/reviewing system for Hackage is a better solution. Cheers, Andres -- Andres Loeh, Universiteit Utrecht mailto:andres@cs.uu.nl mailto:mail@andres-loeh.de http://www.andres-loeh.de