Hi Matthew, hi all,

Thanks for writing this up so clearly.

On real names:
I think a good way forward could be to explicitly define a process that defaults to using real names, while clearly allowing for non-disclosure. For example, the call for information could explain why the XMPP Standards Foundation generally uses real names, but also make it explicit that this is not a hard requirement, and document the process for opting out (e.g. name known only to the Secretary).

Why I think real names matter (as a default): visible people help with transparency and trust, make attribution of work clearer, and give some continuity and accountability to what we publish as an organization. For an open standards body, that public-facing human aspect does have value. That said, I don't think those benefits outweigh legitimate privacy or safety concerns, which is why having a clear, accepted opt-out path feels important to me.

Finally, it's possible that these changes would require adjustments to the bylaws. I'm not sure we've done that before, but I don't see it as a blocker: just something to be clear about and handle properly if we go down this path.