Re: Requiring full name to join ~launchpad-beta-testers (was: Re: [Fwd: hggdh2 deactivated by matthew.revell])

["Vid Ayer" <svaksha@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/29/08, Neal McBurnett <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 05:59:41PM +0000, Matthew East wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM, HggdH <hggdh2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 12:31 +0000, Matthew Revell wrote:
> > > Matthew, this is exactly my point: if you trust someone to provide the
> > > real name (but (can|elect) not to check it), then there is no real need
> > > to ask for a real name. I prefer to be honest also -- and this forced me
> > > to withdraw.
> >
> > I sympathise with your problem and agree with your position. However,
> > I have the feeling from your email that you are eliding Canonical with
> > Ubuntu a little too closely - I hope that the inability to participate
> > in the Launchpad beta tester program has not affected your
> > participation in Ubuntu.
> >
> > Don't forget that while funded by the same company, Launchpad is a
> > separate project to Ubuntu and does not have common decision making
> > processes. If a Launchpad policy begins to affect Ubuntu as a project,
> > then of course the two projects will get together and discuss those
> > issues, but it seems to me that this particular issue only affects
> > participation in the Launchpad project. It's not something that the
> > Ubuntu project has a say in.
>
> Yes, Launchad is independent and can set its own processes. I think
> it would get more support if they made more sense, and as I wrote
> before, I think resolving this sort of problem with a federated
> identity scheme would benefit all of us. But hey, I think that about
> a lot of stuff out there I don't agree with, and I'm pretty picky and
> opinionated :-)
>
> But this is also about the Fridge, which is part of Ubuntu, as Vid
> pointed out in this same thread:
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 11:20:15PM -0800, Vid Ayer wrote:
> > I'd like to add my zero paise worth here because I believe a part of
> > this discussion is indirectly related... it started when the fridge
> > editors (I am one) were required to be a part of the LP-beta testers
> > team and I offered to leave the team because I have been rejected from
> > the team for not agreeing to the real name policy. One of the
> > Canonical employees was nice enough to understand my points, take up
> > the issue but was unable to change the real name policy, which I
> > believe is the *best* way to lose technical contributors.
>
> Where does this aspect of the problem stand? Why do the fridge
> editors need to be part of lp-beta? If they do, why does this policy
> affect them?

When I raised this issue in Jan on the fridge-devel list it was
because our closed list was being moved and we were trying to become
an open list. It was then that I raised the same concerns that many
others raised here in the hope of finding a solution, not turn it into
a witch-hunt and weed out people who dont use a full real name. That's
kinda sad and in retrospect I wish I had not pointed out the lacunae
at all.

Vid
|| http://www.svaksha.com ||