I'd personally disagree with any move to exclude pseudonymous users, especially if the only grounds are that a pseudonym is seen as "less credible" or even somehow "disrespectful".
If a dog has something useful to post to Code4Lib, why shouldn't they be judged on the merits of their email? Less metaphorically: if someone has in the past faced harassment because of who they are, or job repercussions because their manager didn't like something they said, and wants to avoid that in future by using a pseudonym for public discourse, why shouldn't they? Some social media forums have sometimes tried to decrease nastiness by enforcing a "real name" policy. This has never decreased nastiness, because it's a false correlation. It's just meant that some people can't safely participate, and that's counter to the spirit of Code4Lib. Deborah From: Code for Libraries <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Eric Lease Morgan Sent: Saturday, 13 July 2019 3:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note [admiistratativia]" On Jul 11, 2019, at 4:09 PM, Kate Deibel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > For people who lack either github or git knowledge and don't want to just try > to read the diff outputs, here are the links you need... > > -- > Katherine Deibel | PhD > Inclusion & Accessibility Librarian > Syracuse University Libraries > T 315.443.7178 > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > 222 Waverly Ave., Syracuse, NY 13244 > Syracuse University One thing I hope to see in the revision/update to our codes-of-conduct is in regards to signatures; personally, I think each posting to the mailing list ought to be non-anonymous. With the advent of some sort of new SMTP enhancement called DMARC, it is possible to post to LISTSERV applications (like ours) and have your email address obfuscated, like above. This is apparently a feature. [0] Yes, direct replies to an address like [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> do make it back to the original sender, but without some sort of signature can be very difficult to know to whom one is replying. I think any poster to the mailing ought to be easily identifiable. One ought to be able to easily know the name of the poster, their affiliation, and their email address. Such makes things: 1) more transparent, and 2) lends credibility to the post. Even if I don't sign this message you can see that my name is Eric Morgan, I work for Notre Dame, and my address is [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. The posting above works because there is/was a full signature. Postings from [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> are difficult to swallow but I can live with them. But postings from EM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> with no signature I think are not respectful. Remember, "On the Internet, nobody knows you are a dog." [1] [0] dmarc - https://www.lsoft.com/news/dmarc-issue1-2018.asp<https://www.lsoft.com/news/dmarc-issue1-2018.asp> [1] dog - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you>'re_a_dog -- Eric Morgan University of Notre Dame 574/631-8604 ________________________________ "The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use, distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by return e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all attachments from your system."
