Re: [Fwd: hggdh2 deactivated by matthew.revell]

[Scott Kitterman <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday 25 February 2008 06:57, Matthew Revell wrote:
> Hi HggdH,
>
> On 22/02/2008, HggdH <hggdh2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  I received the following email today. Given Matthew's position, and
> >  given mine, I decided to accept the deactivation, and cancel my
> >  subscription in the launchpad-users list.
>
> I'm sorry to that you feel unable to agree to beta team's real names
> policy. I'm also sorry that you've chosen to leave the launchpad-users
> list. I hope that my email wasn't confusing: the real name policy
> applies only to the Launchpad Beta Testers team and not to
> launchpad-users or general use of Launchpad.

I think everyone understood that.  

> I'd like to explain why we deactivated some people's memberships of
> the beta team. A handful of people joined the beta team and agree to
> use their full real name but, following activation, changed their name
> back to

Up to this weekend, I didn't see this requirement documented anywhere.  
Perhaps there was another announcement to members of the beta team, but where 
in the application process were people told this?

> >  Now, for a parting, quick, and disgusted comment:
> >
> >  <rant>
> >  Why is it necessary to know our names? If I tell you a name, how will
> >  you know it is my name?
>
> We're delighted that so many people want to be part of the beta team
> but it's worth remembering that the beta team is optional. If you feel
> unable to agree to the two conditions of membership, it doesn't
> prevent you from using Launchpad as normal and certainly has no affect
> on your participation in Ubuntu or any other project that uses
> Launchpad. I'm sorry that we've been unable to accommodate you on this
> occasion.

The optional nature of participation has no impact on whether the requirement 
is sensible or reasonable.

> As for how we'd know whether it's your real name or not: we wouldn't
> other than by trusting you. Presumably, if someone joins the team
> using what appears to be their full, real name then they are happy to
> do so and won't use a false name.

This is a complete non-sequitor.  Either real names are important and should 
be correct or they aren't.  Since no effort is made to check if identifiers 
that look like names are correct, it's clear the the correctness of the 
identifier is not the issue.  Corporate image is the only reason I've seen 
discussed that is at all sensible.

> > This discussion happened already here [1]. I [2], and some others, did
> > not agree with this requirement, and presented some arguments that
> > *never* were completely responded to by Canonical.
>
> I remember that thread last year and I'm sorry you felt that we
> (Canonical) didn't answer some of the arguments.

I read that thread over and found no sense in the policy.

> >  I expect this to be something that Canonical is going to force
> >  throughout, and more and more, I guess, my involvement with Ubuntu will
> >  have to decrease.
>
> I don't see anything to suggest that this is going to happen more and
> more and there's certainly no element of force. I'm sorry that you're
> not happy with the conditions of the Launchpad beta team but the team
> is entirely optional.

This kind of arbitrary, irrelevant requirement is quick typical in corporate 
proprietary development efforts.  I think the mistake people make sometimes 
with Launchpad is to believe it's anything else.

Scott K