Roman Cheplyaka wrote: > On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:09:00 +0200, Vo Minh Thu <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2010/10/11 Roman Cheplyaka <[email protected]>: >>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:54:12 +0100, Magnus Therning > <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 08:37, Michael Snoyman <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> Also, now 10 random profiles will be displayed on the homepage. Only >>>>> "verified users" will be displayed here. I'm also considering adding a >>>>> new status as well: real picture, so that only people with real images >>>>> (not cartoons, not identicons) can show up on the homepage. I think >>>>> this might give a more professional feel. Thoughts? >>>> >>>> I'd be weary of making that a requirement, there are good reasons for >>>> not putting your picture on the web, just like there are good reasons >>>> to not use your real name :-) >>> >>> ... just like there are good reasons not to publish yourself in a public >>> catalogue (such as haskellers.com) at all. >>> >>> I have nothing against anonymity. I voted against requirement of real >>> names >>> on hackage. >>> >>> But in this particular case, the whole point to be in the listing is to >>> present yourself. So I find the above proposal very reasonable. >> >> Hi, >> >> In the belgian law, an employer can (of course) request a faithful >> resume, but cannot request the resume to contain a picture of you. >> This is a clear example where you wish to advertise yourself, but not >> necessarily with a picture. Anyway, I don't think it is difficult to >> imagine situations where one doesn't wish to show a picture of his/her >> face. > > Agree. But then there should be no picture at all for a given person. > As Michael said -- no cartoons, no identicons.
Why not? They can say more about a person than a picture (not some generic, auto-chosen one, of course). Cheers Ben _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
