[Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group mailing list
benm at workonline.africa
Mon Jan 24 10:08:55 UTC 2022
On 01/24, Mike Silber wrote:
> > On 24 Jan 2022, at 11:35, Ben Maddison <benm at workonline.africa> wrote:
> > [...]
> > If a sender's affiliation is not obvious (From: domain, signature, etc),
> > then the chairs and/or moderators should challenge them to state it.
> > Failure[*] to do so should:
> > A) be an indication to the community (and particularly for the purposes
> > to considering consensus) that any arguments presented should be
> > viewed with great skepticism; and
> > B) be a CoC violation, eventually resulting in a ban.
> I accept your point - but think it would be better served on
> subscribing to the mailing list [or to retain your posting rights]
> rather than on a challenge basis. One post escapes the challenge and
> then there are claims of favouritism :-)
Yup, that also seems a reasonable approach that I could support.
Assuming such a disclosure would be self asserted(?), that leaves some open
- How is that information provided to the reader of a message (perhaps
auto inserting a link to a disclosure webpage at the foot of each
- How is the provided information maintained to prevent staleness when,
e.g. a subscriber changes job, accepts a new consulting gig, gets
elected to a board somewhere?
- (Most stickily) to what extent is the provided disclosure verified,
and by whom? This is hard enough in the case of positive assertions,
and seems near-impossible in the case of omissions.
- Probably others...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Community-Discuss