On Friday, August 09, 2013 09:39:12 Ted Lemon wrote:
On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:05 PM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
Would being able to reliably know exactly who said everything that was
said in a WG meeting visibly improve the quality of our standards? If
the answer is not a clear "yes" (and I don't think it is) then I suggest
that this topic is a distraction.
If you mean will it improve what is written on the page, probably not.
Will it decrease the likelihood of someone participating without
identifying themself, and then violating the IPR rules? Possibly.
AFAIK that's why we do it. Not so much because it is an iron-clad
preventative, but because it to some degree removes the illusion of
anonymity that might tempt someone to do something like that, or just be
careless about it.
Unless you're checking identification provided by sources all agree are
trustworthy, you've done nothing of the sort. You may be able to attach an
unverified identifier to a group of statements, but there's still no firm
connection to identity (I'm not arguing in favor of one, but it seems a bit
silly to expend resources to protect against something you aren't actually
protecting against).
Scott K