[Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group mailing list

[Ben Maddison]

Hi Mike,

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
questions:

- 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
  message?)
- 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...

Cheers,

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20220124/cfc0b7f3/attachment.sig>