| Summary: | (new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Council | Reporter: | Joonas Niilola <juippis> |
| Component: | unspecified | Assignee: | Gentoo Council <council> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | council, grumpytetra, maffblaster, mgorny, mpagano, recruiters, trustees |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Bug Depends on: | 900857 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Joonas Niilola
2022-11-30 07:48:48 UTC
I'd say let's wait for the GLEP to reach its final shape, then we'll have a clue what to do. For the record, the original argument from kernel DCO was that since the code is public, then the records also need to be public. *** Bug 674592 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #0) > Also I do wish to keep this bug private so it's not immediately connected > to anyone in public, and due to the private nature (I don't want anyone to > exploit the system with information in this bug). Do these reasons still apply, or can this bug be made public? During today's Council meeting, it's been suggested that this bug be first taken to Recruiters. After all, the GLEP's been updated and what seems to remain is recruitment policy. That said, if this needed to go through Council, a mailing list discussion should be held first. If trustees / council has no comments to the issues raised in #c0, then recruiters can continue as normal. In other words, no change needed for recruitment process. (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #5) > If trustees / council has no comments to the issues raised in #c0, then > recruiters can continue as normal. In other words, no change needed for > recruitment process. Could you please clarify what this means exactly? (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #5) > If trustees / council has no comments to the issues raised in #c0, then > recruiters can continue as normal. In other words, no change needed for > recruitment process. If it was worth asking council about this in the first place (and it was!), then it should be discussed on -project to solicit the opinions of the community at large. (In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #6) > (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #5) > > If trustees / council has no comments to the issues raised in #c0, then > > recruiters can continue as normal. In other words, no change needed for > > recruitment process. > > Could you please clarify what this means exactly? "if the real legal name is still a mandatory" which I guess is a question for trustees, not really a problem for recruiters if that's allowed. That question has followups though: "people who'd like to join the project but remain anonymous in public. In other words, don't wish to disclose their real names" and repeated with a condition: "what about cases where the developer may disclose their name to the developer community, but not public" To clarify and summarize: Does "Gentoo" now allow recruiting people using an alias, without a) everyone, b) "public" knowing their real legal passport names? B. means it somehow is proven to a developer community or trustees or council, whatever entity decides and needs the information in the end. (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #8) > To clarify and summarize: Does "Gentoo" now allow recruiting people using an > alias, without a) everyone, b) "public" knowing their real legal passport > names? B. means it somehow is proven to a developer community or trustees or > council, whatever entity decides and needs the information in the end. The recent GLEP 76 update allows contributed commits without a real name. This doesn't imply that we now must allow developers without a real name. The latter is a separate policy decision. IMHO it wouldn't be a contradiction if we required higher standards for a person joining as a developer, as compared to an outside contributor. (In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #9) > > The recent GLEP 76 update allows contributed commits without a real name. > This doesn't imply that we now must allow developers without a real name. > > The latter is a separate policy decision. IMHO it wouldn't be a > contradiction if we required higher standards for a person joining as a > developer, as compared to an outside contributor. Since recruiters don't have any policy regarding this (to my knowledge) I believe it should be voted by council. There's only "infra-limitation" currently. Question goes: Should recruiters allow anonymous developers to join? -> If "no", what should recruiters do if they suspect someone is using a bogus alias? My position hasn't changed since https://bugs.gentoo.org/883715#c7. I'd like to see it discussed on the ML. (In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #10) > Question goes: > Should recruiters allow anonymous developers to join? "Anonymous" or "pseudonymous"? GLEP 76 doesn't really permit full anonymity, just established pseudonyms. After the council meeting on 2023-08-13, I'm closing this issue with the motion that was voted on with 6 yes and 1 absence votes: The council does not see the need for admitting anonymous or pseudonymous developers at this stage (bug 883715), but is willing to reconsider the topic should a demonstrable need arise or new arguments be brought forward. |
