Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 10:42:58PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > >> On 2025-07-08 at 22:51:34, Jeff King wrote: >> > Yeah, I agree (and didn't know that before; thanks for mentioning). I >> > think mostly I was just hoping that some of this reasoning and these >> > pointers would make it into the commit message. >> > >> > The content of the patch looked OK to me, though I do still like the >> > CNCF wording a bit better. >> >> In case it isn't clear, I'll be sending a v2, probably this weekend with >> more of this information and some updated wording. >> >> I don't love the CNCF wording because I feel it's too ambiguously >> worded. What is the "community"? The open-source community? My >> neighbourhood? My friend group? Can a real name be a username or >> handle that's distinct and unambiguous? What about communities where >> people share the same name? (Debian has, or at least had, two >> contributors who both have the exact same full legal name and can >> therefore only be distinguished by handle.) >> >> I also think redefining "real name" in that way is misleading and leads >> to confusion that might put people off, especially those that are not >> native English speakers. I know it's common for lawyers to redefine >> language to mean something very precise but different from the language >> that ordinary humans use[0], but that's ultimately dishonest and tends >> to deceive and we shouldn't do it. Most people take the phrase "real >> name" to mean something equivalent to "legal name", so we should use >> language to describe the requirement that doesn't confuse or mislead >> people when it's used without further context (such as in a social media >> post). > > Fair points. I think what I liked about it is that it emphasized the > purpose of the policy: > > The key concern is that your identification is sufficient enough to > contact you if an issue were to arise in the future about your > contribution. > > I also liked the sentence before: > > Your real name is the name you convey to people in the community for > them to use to identify you as you. > > but I agree that "community" is vague there. I think it mostly means > "the development community", but I agree that we could perhaps sidestep > the whole issue by just saying we need some way to be able to identify > and get in touch with you. > >> I'll take some inspiration from the CNCF post and rephrase to make it >> more approachable in v2. > > Great, thank you. Sounds good. Thanks, both of you.
