Re^6: Status of Recent User Information Leak

For the record, I have not in the past, nor do I intend in the future, to post anonymously on this issue.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

Comment on Re^6: Status of Recent User Information Leak

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Status of Recent User Information Leak by Argel (Prior) on Oct 06, 2009 at 19:47 UTC
To be clear on my part, I chose people I did *not* think wrote that post, but did help make my point that there are legitimate reasons for posting anonymously. My apologies for any misunderstandings. Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks	[reply]
Re^8: Status of Recent User Information Leak by ELISHEVA (Prior) on Oct 07, 2009 at 07:10 UTC
The people you listed are known for their ability to be effective. Anonymous venting and "calling out" is rarely, if ever, effective at causing change, so I would surmise that the author of that post is not among that group. Besides some are gods themselves and all have personal relationships with senior people at the Perl Foundation, so they have much better avenues to get their point across. I called for the person to step out from anonymity because I want them to be effective. Of course there are legitimate reasons for posting anonymously. But if this person really wants to make a difference, then he/she needs to step out and speak in his/her own voice. Best, beth	[reply]