From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:simon(_at_)josefsson(_dot_)org]
Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a
standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any
technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people
operating under a cloak of anonymity. Expressing an anonymous voice?
No problem. Influencing determination of a consensus with public
impact? That should not be allowed, IMO.
What if the pseudonymous voice raise a valid technical concern, provide
useful text for a specification, or even co-author a specification?
That's having voice. We can be open to any voice. If a concern has valid
technical merits, then that should be evident to others, and drive a consensus
on its own. But the consensus can still be determined by identifiable people.
I think decisions should be based on technically sound arguments.
Whether someone wants to reveal their real identity is not necessarily
correlated to the same person providing useful contributions.
True. But neither is ability to provide useful contributions necessarily
correlated with being counted as part of a consensus.
IETF mailing list