The *only* problem I have with all of this is that it wasn't already in the CONTRIBUTING document. Apparently it's been discussed in the past, but I either wasn't on the appropriate mailing list yet, or very possibly not even involved with the project yet at all. To me, it seems wrong that someone does the work, submits the work, then finds they're refused for no fault of their own since the published guidelines didn't say anything about it.
So that's why I don't really agree with either side. I think it's their choice, and because of that they can't really be 'wrong' in it, though everyone's free to disagree as they wish. And to clarify, I feel pseudonyms and non-traditional names are two different things, as to me at least one is hiding who you are, and the latter is a chosen self-identity.
The problem is, were someone to be grandfathered in because it wasn't in the contributing doc, that opens a hole for future people to say 'well, there's already pseudonyms in there' and if a non-traditional name is accepted it opens the question 'how do you know that's no a pseudonym' (which already is mirrored in the 'how do you know it's a real name' question).
It seems to me rather than arguing over this, and honestly flooding my mailbox, the Linus, Daniel and Bjorn should sit down and hammer out exactly what their whole policies on names Given, Chosen, and Pseudo are, their list of reasons for it, and publish that to this mailing list. They've certainly had the chance to see the arguments given here, but I at least don't feel like I've got a clear perspective on what the causes for the policy exactly are. So why not halt the debate, ask that they definitively respond. Then, if new issues arrive, if things are said that have not yet been argued about, they can be addressed. But if what's said is already covered by the arguments put forth here, accept that things are as they are, that whether you agree with them or not it's not your decision to make, and go on with things.
Honestly, I've seen two sides of the argument, but I've seen a *lot* of simply echoed opinions from both sides, where one says "Real names are good for legal reasons" and the other says "But you could just lie." But simply arguing back and forth isn't really going to address the issue that's come up. It needs to be put down what is the 'official' cause for wanting full names, and then instead of just calling it a bad idea, offer alternatives that meet/exceed the same goals but allow those of you who have preferred names perhaps the freedom to use them. I know there's likely not an answer that will satisfy both sides, and there's no requirement for the side in control to give any, but it's possible that if things cool down for a bit, there's some gray area in there somewhere that can be inhabited.
On 3/10/06, gl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I honestly have a very hard time agreeing with either side in this
> discussion.
I'm suprised to hear you say that, because I completely agree with
everything you've said.
--
gl
