On Friday, August 09, 2013 09:39:12 Ted Lemon wrote: > On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:05 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Would being able to reliably know exactly who said everything that was > > said in a WG meeting visibly improve the quality of our standards? If > > the answer is not a clear "yes" (and I don't think it is) then I suggest > > that this topic is a distraction. > If you mean will it improve what is written on the page, probably not. > Will it decrease the likelihood of someone participating without > identifying themself, and then violating the IPR rules? Possibly. > > AFAIK that's why we do it. Not so much because it is an iron-clad > preventative, but because it to some degree removes the illusion of > anonymity that might tempt someone to do something like that, or just be > careless about it. Unless you're checking identification provided by sources all agree are trustworthy, you've done nothing of the sort. You may be able to attach an unverified identifier to a group of statements, but there's still no firm connection to identity (I'm not arguing in favor of one, but it seems a bit silly to expend resources to protect against something you aren't actually protecting against). Scott K