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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2014-10-30 at 22:59:45 +0100, Isaac Dupree wrote: > > There are good reasons not to require people's "real" name to > participate: > > > > > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F > > > > 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/Documentation/SubmittingPatches#n358 > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
