From: Tim Schmidt <timschmidt_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:18:29 -0500

On 3/10/06, Bluechip <csbluechip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >I won't pretend to hold any influence in this project, but from my
> > > >experience, an email address is more 'real' online than a name. As
> > > >people have said, a name can be faked. An email address is
> > > >functional, and so, is much more likely to be accurate.
> > >
> > > ...and should there be some catastrophic legal horror ...I'm sure
> > > IP's will be reversed, ISP's contacted and 5am raids organised.
> >
> >Sure... and may I ask how you expect they will not do the same to
> >csbluechip_at_gmail.com?
> >
> >--tim
>
> If I were involvred in the code which was the subject to a
> "catastrophic legal horror" or even, for that, if I were involved
> with the code ...then I am sure they WOULD!
>
> <confused>
>
> BC

Just pointing out that information already available in the mailing
list logs can and does point to each and every developer. The patch
came from an email address... that's enough (under all but the most
extreme cases) to hold someone legally accountable. So why resist
identification by email (which you have to use anyway to send in
patches), and alternatively, why require anything more than email when
it does the job better than anything short of picture IDs verified in
person?

--tim
Received on 2006-03-11