Hi Rogol,

If you want to make an exception to pseudonymity and require real name disclosure for volunteers in such a post then a post on a talkpage or on this mailing list isn't enough to get a change. You or someone else would need to start a request for comment, presumably on meta, and you'd need enough to agree with you to get consensus.

It would be a big change from the principle of only requiring real names for paid staff, and for volunteers such as trustees who are in roles where it is legally required.

Regards

WSC

Nataliia,

Thanks for your prompt response. You have made your decision, and if you have solicited applications for the Committee on the basis that the members may remain pseudonymous, then I would not expect you to resile from that. However for the next round perhaps you may wish to reconsider your policy in the light of two points.

Firstly, I am not suggesting that members of the Committee be required to link their real names and Wikimedia handles. I am suggesting that they be required to act under their real names. This allows a transparent exercise of their powers to, for example, bar candidates from standing for nomination to the Board, and make it clear to the community in general and the potential candidates in particular, where they might have a conflict of interest. If a potential member of the Election Committee canot take the risk of associating their name with the Foundation for fear of reprisals, then that is regrettable, but the same would be true if they wished to stand for the Board. There must be a balance between transparency and getting the best candidates and in this case I suggest that you have struck the balance in the wrong place.

Secondly, it has been claimed by Adrian that there is no need for this, as he has been involved in government elections and has never been required to disclose his name to the electors. I do not know which government he is referring to, or how important a role he had in the election process, but in the stable mature democracy where I live, the members of the electoral commission are publicly named, the returning officers with responsibility for conducting the elections are named (and are usually elected officials), the count is conducted in a public forum, often televised, to which the candidates have right of access, and the returning officers announce the results in public, explicitly giving their names as part of the announcement. I think that you can afford to be as transparent as that.

"Rogol"

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv ntymkiv@wikimedia.org wrote:

...