From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69B54138334 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 01:15:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 236B4E0954; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 01:15:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9CA0E08AD for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 01:15:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2a03:8600:1001:4000::1867] (unknown [IPv6:2a03:8600:1001:4000::1867]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: alicef@gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF436335D52; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 01:15:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:15:26 +0900 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <232747ba-063c-821f-a66d-5f106ed2aa82@gentoo.org> References: <20190401032055.GA9497@linux1.home> <4bbfc34f-335f-5521-310a-b66ffd0d9a9a@gentoo.org> <5e30d658-80c8-b608-1505-dc08db3625bf@gentoo.org> <20190403174315.32615d3b9574571e3ed4a399@gentoo.org> <80ed2e482e96c96555bf4fd9331731c4c9ad0d7f.camel@gentoo.org> <232747ba-063c-821f-a66d-5f106ed2aa82@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----DIIUCX6MSM0IRF0UEMJMR467PYPLSD" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items -- council meeting 2019-04-14 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org,Gokturk Yuksek ,Ulrich Mueller From: Alice Ferrazzi Message-ID: <60AF1A45-5DCF-4C0A-8907-7F47A6049462@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 10c4ac70-4af8-4ace-b33b-5ea2780e9c67 X-Archives-Hash: 0711d8d8ae97494039158d85ca85a523 ------DIIUCX6MSM0IRF0UEMJMR467PYPLSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On April 10, 2019 6:30:00 AM GMT+09:00, Gokturk Yuksek wrote: > > >Ulrich Mueller: >>>>>>> On Tue, 09 Apr 2019, Gokturk Yuksek wrote: >>=20 >>> I understand that but it creates problems with the consistent >>> enforcement of the policy=2E There are no clear guidelines as to how >we >>> decide who requires identity validation and who doesn't=2E We don't >even >>> know who is tasked with making the request and performing the >>> validation=2E 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? >>=20 >>> [=2E=2E=2E] >>=20 >>> I can't help but agree with the point that we are losing real >>> contributors and real community=2E >>=20 >> So, "real" contributors, but they don't have a real name? >>=20 > >I think you're attributing malicious intent to using a pseudonym=2E 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)=2E I was making the argument that people who contribute under a >pseudonym are just as "real" as the contributors who use their legal >names=2E > >>> And people whom I talked to didn't oppose the Foundation's attempt >to >>> reduce legal liability=2E They were frustrated by the arbitrary >>> enforcement and not having their opinions heard=2E 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=2E >>=20 >> 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=2E >>=20 >> 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=2E >>=20 > >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=2E The infrastructure is already in >place for this=2E 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=2E 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=2E 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=2E > >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=2E > I support the idea of Gentoo being more inclusive=2E --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E ------DIIUCX6MSM0IRF0UEMJMR467PYPLSD Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my br= evity=2E ------DIIUCX6MSM0IRF0UEMJMR467PYPLSD--