RFC: Properly stated origin of code contributions

[Carter Schonwald]

I agree with herbert, and one solution would be to ask those people who
which to remain pseudonymous to have a named person who's agreed to be
their proxy co-sign the patch or whatever.  That i think accomplishes that
same goal :)

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvriedel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2014-10-30 at 22:59:45 +0100, Isaac Dupree wrote:
> > There are good reasons not to require people's "real" name to
> participate:
> >
> >
> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F
> >
> > Simon PJ often advocates to know people's name as part of creating a
> > friendly community.  There are good things about this.  It also helps
> > exclude people with less privilege, whom we have few enough of already,
> > if it is a policy.
> >
> > I like most things about "Developer's Certificate of Origin", though.
>
> However, if we want to adopt the DCO[1] (as used by Linux Kernel
> development) as a good-faith (and yet light-weight) attempt to track the
> origin/accountability of contributions it relies on real names to know
> who is actually making that assertion. Having the DCO signed off by an
> obvious pseudonym would defeat the whole point of the DCO imho.
>
> Cheers,
>   hvr
>
>  [1]:
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches#n358
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20141030/94224c8c/attachment.html>