Red Hill Technology wrote:
Who should the "Name Police" be?
Unless there's a consensus that I'm not doing a good job of it, or grave concerns that I might abuse the power, or things along those lines, or unless I get really tired of doing it, I can continue to be the name police myself.
As I've said, and partly as a result of discussions with Erik, I think that in the future, we will be slowly and cautiously migrating to more formalized decision methods, including voting, committees, and things of that nature, but there are some big downsides to all that and we shouldn't do it prematurely.
I certainly agree with the rest of your analysis. By and large, this is not a very difficult issue.
Basically, the only complaint that I have heard about not allowing certain names is that it may "censor" people's views. I think that is a pretty obviously specious objection. Certainly, if anyone comes to me with that kind of argument in a specific case, I will gladly give them a web page on one of my servers, where they can put forward their previously "censored" views.
For example, C*mguzzler might be given a page on jimmywales.com, my personal site, where he can put forward the important and urgent public policy and ethical implications of not just drinking it, but guzzling it.
I'm being sarcastic (though I'm dead serious), because I think it's pretty clear that the only real agenda people like that have is to act like jackasses.
--Jimbo