I don't feel comfortable with a statement like the Foundation chooses what sort of method they want. That sounds an awful lot like structure "coming down from on-high" instead of "up from the community".
If this is to remain a community-driven enterprise, then whatever decisions are made, should be made with the consensus of the community and not directed by a benevolent closed oligarchy.
I agree that some *specific* details of how a person was verified could remain private. It is rather the method, scope, and result that should be made public so many eyes can self-validate that it's a method that is not trivial to fool.
Will
**************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799634x1201361008/aol?redir=http... eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133440%3B36002254%3Bj)
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 12:46 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I agree that some *specific* details of how a person was verified could remain private. It is rather the method, scope, and result that should be made public so many eyes can self-validate that it's a method that is not trivial to fool.
Will
Good point, and sensible. On that note, I think we now agree more generally.
FT2