On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 02:34 +0200, Steve Alexander wrote: > = Using real names = > > (snip) > I think it's fine to use a made-up name, so long as it is your own > made-up name, and you're not trying to mislead people through using it. > Thank you. Although "not trying to mislead" is a rather vague statement, I am confident that "hggdh" does not mislead anyone on who I am. I am hggdh. That's it. This is how I like it, and how I would like it to be kept. And, given the usual confusion between IRC nick, launchpad Ids, and etc, this is actually a gain.
> (another snip) > Although we require real names only in some very specific situations, I > think that revealing names and identities leads to a better community > overall. I've read through a number of accounts of harassment online, > including some of those on the ubuntu-women mailing list. I noticed > that the worst harassment is done by people who do not reveal their > names. So, I want us to encourage a community where people reveal their > names, and are held responsible for their actions. > I do not agree with these assertions. "Revealing names and identities leads to a better community overall" This *might* be true in an office space, and was indeed true of old -- by thy name I know thee --. But we are not all in a physical office space. I have never met any of you personally, and I do not think I will ever, at least for most of you. This is, by all accepted definitions, a *virtual* community. I really do not see why knowing my name will make you, or anybody else, believe or trust me any more than right now (and, BTW, I would expect you to *not* trust me right now. This is OK. I also do not expect you to trust me just because you know my name). A community is made by its members, not by their names. Additionally, how are we/you going to verify if the name provided is the actual, real, honest, name of the person? By requiring a fax/scan of the person's identity card? By having a notarised copy of same? Otherwise, how sure will we be that -- for example -- hggdh is not Illya Kuriakin, or Marie Antoinette, or Joe Doe? In other words: is it really important that the real name is know? If it is, then we must have procedures that will allow us to verify and ascertain it beyond reasonable doubt (in which case I will include myself out. During my professional life I already have to go thru too many of these procedures...). "(...) the worst harassment is done by people who do not reveal their names" And last, but not least, I do not harass other people -- be it due to either gender, race, religion, affiliation, membership, or ignorance-based bigotry. And I am still known as hggdh. > So, we have a tension between offering anonymity to those who fear being > harassed and encouraging people to use real names. There is, unfortunately, a fixation on harassment and anonymity. Please keep in mind that anonymity is sought *also* because some people would rather keep a low profile. And -- guess what -- I do like to keep a low profile. I do not want my name known by everybody. I do not crave publicity or fame. And this is also one reason I have kept, after some hard thinking, my contributions to the Ubuntu community rather limited. > (snip again) > = GPG keys = > > You can use GPG, and be part of the web of trust, without directly > revealing your real name. Here's how. > (snip) > 4. You use your "real name" key to sign your "nickname" key. That way, > your "nickname" key appears in the web of trust. Perhaps I am missing something here. If I sign my nickname GPG key with my real-id GPG key, then my real name will be displayable by anyone with cursory knowledge of GPG/PGP. Yes, there might be other signers to my key, but now the universe is much more restricted. -- ..hggdh.. non omnis moritur après moi le déluge a rose by any other name
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- launchpad-users mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
