> Perhaps my choice of term was inaccurate, but there are certainly > similar things in open source projects. Debian requires verification > of a real name by physically sighting government-issued ID. Most > projects of substantial size have a private list for the core > developers, and sometimes keep new announcements under wraps for a > time. > > If there is a policy about real names then enforcing it based on > whether something "looks like" a real name is odd. I can see a case > for requiring people to use "reasonable" names (not confusable, not > just punctuation, not offensive, etc). > > If real names are to be required maybe, as previously discussed, there > should be an option to only show them to admins and use a handle > publicly. > > -- > Martin > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I like the explanation. However, according to Scott K, there is no real name requirement in core development of Ubuntu. The problem is that this real name is not consistent (only in Launchpad Beta Testers, not in Canonical sponsored Ubuntu development- at least for the most part). Anyways, as you said, the real name is no where verified. I believe the Debian project uses key signing (by people who meet in real life) to register new maintainers. This can be done if verification is indeed necessary, but I think this is overkill for Launchpad Beta Testers. These are the choice I think a realistic regarding the real name policy, and may apply to other Canonical-sponsored projects like Ubuntu as well. 1. No restrictions on names. Pros: greatest freedom and greatest potential number of contributors. Cons: not professional (not good for business and Canonical), and may not give a good public impression of Ubuntu (like someone said earlier, would Canonical really want to say a bug was fixed by flyingmonkeys?). However switching to the feisty fawn, the gutsy gibbon, or the intrepid ibex are that business friendly either, although that is a different story. 2. "Real names". On the outside, these names would appear to be real. However, like authors of famous books, realistic pseudonyms would be allowed, though the use of pseudonyms does not need to be extra-publicized. It is also possible that pseudonyms would be part of exceptions that would only apply under certain conditions (e.g. when the pseudonym is more useful for trust than a never mentioned legal name). Pseudonyms should be treated as real names, especially under the examples I have given in past emails. While useful for privacy and other freedom reasons, they should hopefully please the business world. 3. Legal names. Follow a policy similar to that used for new Debian project maintainers. Key signing would be used to verify authenticity. See http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-step2 for the Debian policy. Even though I like choice one, I understand it is may be unreasonable for Canonical. I think number two should be acceptable, certainly for the Launchpad Beta Testers team. It is possible that other areas may require choice three, but these would be relevant to core development of Ubuntu and not Launchpad. I am not too acquainted in this area, so I think Ubuntu development should speak for themselves. As one said, this is all part of the greater picture. Consistency and explicitness is important. Cyrus Jones -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHw3G+gmu+rEIQLtwRAnXqAJ98v3NsFppnL3KMSJQhiLcc6RpwewCfXtPc MmmG/53+Dlagb5PLM3JYE3Y= =E/+f -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)