Hi all,

1) Make the publication of members' real names optional

This has come up a number of times, and there is broad consensus that
we don't need to publish real names of our members, even if we may
need to have them privately on file.

This proposal would be to explicitly permit members to reveal their
names only to the XSF Secretary, and allow pseudonyms to be used
elsewhere.

I believe that adoption of this proposal would help encourage more
people to join the XSF as members, who may be unwilling to publish
their real name on the internet, or connect their identity with the
XSF (for which I can think of countless possible reasons).

+1 from me. I am not personally affected, but I don't want to exclude people who want or need a greater level of privacy. We should remove as many barriers to XSF membership as possible.

Some people have raised concerns about not being able to discern duplicate entries, bots, etc. I don't think removing the real name requirement is going to have much effect in that regard given that:

a. we don't check the real names anyway. People can technically put in duplicate entries and get away with it even under the current system (and we trust that they don't; the system runs on trust which I think is a good thing)

b. the XSF Secretary still gets access to real names under this proposal, so it's not like they are completely anonymous. I imagine other people such as the Board and anyone relevant could also get access to real names, where appropriate, if there is some controversy

c. the default process is still to state ones real name, so it's not like all XSF members are immediately going to turn pseudonymous tomorrow. Given that it's a special case and not a general one, we could also have the XSF Secretary (or some delegated volunteers) perform a bit more due diligence to anonymous members if needed (I personally don't see a need for this, but others may find it reassuring)

Finally, if many members have strong concerns about even this, nothing stops us from allowing XSF members to know peoples' real names without making them publicly available for the whole world to see (eg. sent out on a private mailing list or have it announced by memberbot). This is a compromise position that complicates things a bit but I think it should address most concerns regarding pseudonymous members.

Personally I know most XMPP folks by their pseudonyms anyway and I don't really know or care what their real names are. If I meet someone in real life and want to confirm they're the same person, I'd do it by asking them to prove a connection to their JID, not to their real name.

2) Cease publishing vote tallies for membership applications

It has been raised before, by someone who said it contributed to not
renewing their membership, that the presence of "no" votes on the
membership page was not a good experience.

Realistically, it is very rare for members to be accepted unanimously
(most people have some "no" votes, and this will only increase as our
membership increases). However, I fear that publishing the vote counts
turns it into something of an unnecessary popularity contest, even if
it isn't aiming to be one. It's not necessary for them to be public,
as long as we keep the results on file.

For people who are part of minorities in our community, it can be
disconcerting to be told that some people voted against them, and to
have a publicly visible record and ranking.

Therefore I am proposing reduction of our membership results to a list
of accepted members instead of publishing tallies publicly.

I am not proposing changes to our council or board elections, as I
think those would need additional consideration and may warrant
greater transparency.

+1 especially given that it's not common for organisations to announce vote tallies for membership. Also agreed about leaving council and board elections unchanged (i.e. leaving the vote tallies public for those).

~Badri