On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 15:35:58 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2018, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> 
> >> This also requires that they use their real name for signing; an
> >> anonymous certification or one under a pseudonym would not mean
> >> anything.
> 
> Yes, that's the rationale. We can simply forget about the whole
> copyright policy effort, if we don't require committers to certify
> their contributions under their real name.
> 
> > I don't like this. We have anonymous developers right now (at least
> > their names are not public even in LDAP). The cited requirement will
> > effectively kick them from the project. Moreover we have contributors
> > considering to become developers who prefer to keep their anonymity.
> 
> According to recruitment policy [1] (which is in place since 2004 [2]
> at least), there cannot be any anonymous developers doing copyrightable
> work:
> 
> # Real names must be provided for all developers, including
> # infrastructure and documentation. Any exceptions to this for
> # extenuating circumstances will be considered on a case-by-case
> # basis. No exceptions will be made for people doing copyrightable
> # work (ebuilds, software, scripts, documentation, etc.).
> 
> AFAICS, the GLEP will only confirm the existing policy there.

Real names must be provided != must be publicly available. The
current status is that they are in LDAP, but not viewable outside
of recruiters (and maybe some other limited groups). What you are
proposing demands public availability, so it can be seen as an extra
requirement compared to GLEP.

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko