> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Frankly, it strikes me as somewhat odd that a body acting as a > > standards-setting organization with public impact might allow any > > technical decision on its specifications to be driven by people > > operating under a cloak of anonymity. Expressing an anonymous voice? > > No problem. Influencing determination of a consensus with public > > impact? That should not be allowed, IMO. > > What if the pseudonymous voice raise a valid technical concern, provide > useful text for a specification, or even co-author a specification? That's having voice. We can be open to any voice. If a concern has valid technical merits, then that should be evident to others, and drive a consensus on its own. But the consensus can still be determined by identifiable people. > I think decisions should be based on technically sound arguments. Just so. > Whether someone wants to reveal their real identity is not necessarily > correlated to the same person providing useful contributions. True. But neither is ability to provide useful contributions necessarily correlated with being counted as part of a consensus. Peter _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf