On 11/22/24 1:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 11/22/24 6:03 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> On 11/22/24 11:13 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> On 11/21/24 6:04 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >>>> Adjust the DCO text to match the broader community usage including >>>> the Linux kernel use around "real names." >>>> >>>> These changes clarify what was meant by "real name" and that it is >>>> not required to be a "legal name" or any other stronger >>>> requirement than a known identity that could be contacted to >>>> discuss the contribution. >>> >>> My take has been that this change is not necessary for us because the >>> FSF can accept copyright assignment for pseudonymous contributions, >>> so individual reviewers don't need to adjudicate whether a particular >>> pseudonym is sufficiently "known". >> >> This is not the case, which is why I'm suggesting we align the wording of >> the DCO >> usage to match the general community accepted meaning. >> >> The FSF copyright assignment process allows you to *post* your work publicly >> from >> a pseudonym and allows you to use your pseudonym in the "sources" file that >> GNU Maintainers use to check assignment and marks it like this: >> "Note: this is a pseudonym; legal name on assignment." >> >> The process does not allow you to remain pseudonymous to the FSF, and that >> information >> may eventually leak out of the FSF. >> >> Again, I'm suggesting we align the text of the DCO we use with the rest of >> the >> communities that use it. >> >> This is not a material change in the use of the DCO, just a clarification of >> the >> wording around "real name." > > Sure, but it is a material change in our processes. How do you > propose that reviewers judge what constitutes a "known" identity?
Why do you need to judge that? You can point out that anonymous contributions are not permitted. And accept that the person is being honest in their dealings with you. -- Cheers, Carlos.
