Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items -- council meeting 2019-04-14

[Alice Ferrazzi]

On April 10, 2019 6:30:00 AM GMT+09:00, Gokturk Yuksek <gokturk@g.o> wrote:
>
>
>Ulrich Mueller:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Apr 2019, Gokturk Yuksek wrote:
>>
>>> I understand that but it creates problems with the consistent
>>> enforcement of the policy. There are no clear guidelines as to how
>we
>>> decide who requires identity validation and who doesn't. We don't
>even
>>> know who is tasked with making the request and performing the
>>> validation. If I work with a user and I am convinced that they
>provide
>>> their real name, is that sufficient for the foundation? Can I
>>> arbitrarily be suspicious of any user and demand them to provide
>their
>>> identity?
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>> I can't help but agree with the point that we are losing real
>>> contributors and real community.
>>
>> So, "real" contributors, but they don't have a real name?
>>
>
>I think you're attributing malicious intent to using a pseudonym. There
>are various social and legal reasons as to why someone would use a
>pseudonym (that does not include infringing the copyright of an
>employer). I was making the argument that people who contribute under a
>pseudonym are just as "real" as the contributors who use their legal
>names.
>
>>> And people whom I talked to didn't oppose the Foundation's attempt
>to
>>> reduce legal liability. They were frustrated by the arbitrary
>>> enforcement and not having their opinions heard. The fact that
>people
>>> can get away with using a pseudonym as long as it reads like a
>normal
>>> person name (for which there is no definition) is something we have
>to
>>> address to the people who weren't as lucky with their choice of
>>> pseudonym and lost their ability to contribute.
>>
>> Really, all these points had been raised before the copyright policy
>was
>> approved, and I am sure that both the Council and the Board have
>> considered them.
>>
>> Also, what would be the alternative? Signed-off-by lines without a
>real
>> name would be meaningless, which basically means that we would accept
>> any contribution without being able to track its origin.
>>
>
>I'd like to (informally) propose the following, for which I'm willing
>to
>formulate as a GLEP proposal if there is interest:
>
>The Foundation has an established practice of storing the legal names
>of
>developers who join under a pseudonym. The infrastructure is already in
>place for this. I think that allowing these developers to commit using
>their pseudonyms as long as the Foundation is informed their real
>identity does not exacerbate the legal risks they already pose. The
>foundation may decide their arbitrary criteria on who is eligible for
>this type of protection, including requiring sound legal reasons for
>them to keep their identities hidden. I understand that the maintenance
>of this could be a burden for the Foundation in theory, but in practice
>I suspect this number is very low already.
>
>Although it does not address the issue for user contributors who would
>like to use a pseudonym, I believe it would still be a step in the
>right
>direction by being more inclusive to existing developers who have been
>helping Gentoo for years.
>

I support the idea of Gentoo being more inclusive.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.