| 1 |
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:28 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, 2019-04-10 at 15:27 +0900, Alice Ferrazzi wrote: |
| 4 |
> > The 04/10/2019 07:59, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 09 Apr 2019, Gokturk Yuksek wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > I'd like to (informally) propose the following, for which I'm willing |
| 8 |
> > > > to formulate as a GLEP proposal if there is interest: |
| 9 |
> > > > The Foundation has an established practice of storing the legal names |
| 10 |
> > > > of developers who join under a pseudonym. The infrastructure is |
| 11 |
> > > > already in place for this. I think that allowing these developers to |
| 12 |
> > > > commit using their pseudonyms as long as the Foundation is informed |
| 13 |
> > > > their real identity does not exacerbate the legal risks they already |
| 14 |
> > > > pose. The foundation may decide their arbitrary criteria on who is |
| 15 |
> > > > eligible for this type of protection, including requiring sound legal |
| 16 |
> > > > reasons for them to keep their identities hidden. I understand that |
| 17 |
> > > > the maintenance of this could be a burden for the Foundation in |
| 18 |
> > > > theory, but in practice I suspect this number is very low already. |
| 19 |
> > > |
| 20 |
> > > That doesn't work, because there would be no way for a person outside |
| 21 |
> of |
| 22 |
> > > the Foundation to verify such identities. |
| 23 |
> > > |
| 24 |
> > There is no way also for foundation to check all sign-off are assigned |
| 25 |
> > to real legal names. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > > To clarify, I won't be opposed against making a specific exception and |
| 28 |
> > > "grandfathering" any devs who had commit access before the cut-off date |
| 29 |
> > > when GLEP 76 was implemented. |
| 30 |
> > > |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > I propose foundation to vote for add the use of pseudonym in the GLEP 76. |
| 33 |
> > For keeping Gentoo a confortable and inclusive place. |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> If Foundation decides to arbitrarily change a policy that's been |
| 37 |
> initially approved both by Council and Foundation, then I propose that |
| 38 |
> the Council rejects changes to the policy and blocks such contributions. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Furthermore, I will propose that we actively pursue removing Foundation |
| 41 |
> from Gentoo as apparently Trustees once again are trying to abuse |
| 42 |
> the power that they've only gotten because nobody else wanted to take |
| 43 |
> legal risk from negligence of previous Boards. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
I want to separate talking about things (which is happening on this thread) |
| 47 |
and actually making and passing foundation motions (which doesn't happen on |
| 48 |
this list, but does happen on bugzilla.) Alice is in fact a board member |
| 49 |
(as am I!) and should be free to talk about whatever she likes here. |
| 50 |
Talking about something is different than "the trustees apparently once |
| 51 |
again abusing their power." Talking about a concept, even a controversial |
| 52 |
one, is not an abuse of power; its a free exchange of ideas. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-A |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> -- |
| 58 |
> Best regards, |
| 59 |
> Michał Górny |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> |
Archives