Re: [PATCH] SubmittingPatches: allow non-real name contributions

From: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date: Jul 9, 2025, 22:42 UTC
Message-ID: <aG7wcoy3gTzSd_4w@fruit.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To: <20250708225134.GB1180568@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On 2025-07-08 at 22:51:34, Jeff King wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> 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).

By contrast, we suggest that `user.name` "conventionally refer to some form of a personal name". That doesn't work here because I did intend for us to allow handles or usernames, but Wikipedia describes it as "the set of names by which an individual person or animal is known" and, due to the use of the passive voice (an intentional choice, I'm sure) is specifically ambiguous and allows lots of allowance for personal circumstances.

I'll take some inspiration from the CNCF post and rephrase to make it more approachable in v2.

[0] For instance, one time where I was told that my laptop's removable battery was an "accessory" and was therefore not covered under warranty, despite the fact that it was required for the machine to boot.

-- 
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA