That's why we still need committers to check.
I think the Architecture Council should focus on ways to make committers' work easier and more focused on producing value; and instead not try to increase committers "duty" regarding EDP.
The Eclipse Foundation has ECA check that committer should be able to trust. Whether or not anonymous URIs have to be accepted or not should be part of the ECA check and the ECA compliance.
I personally don't want to spend more time reviewing the "meta" part of a commit. Having to check the copyright headers for new files is enough of a boring PITA, I don't want more of that kind of non-productive work if we can have it handled more automatically in the process.
As a committer, I still think that I do not want anonymous contributors in my projects.
I personally don't care about the real identity of the contributor. I care only about the contribution itself. And even if I want to turn someone into contributor, I don't care whether they're name Jean Dupont or Jane Doe. I really don't want to start having to take that kind of things into account.
I still think requiring a legal name is a good thing. I'll put the topic on the call agenda for tomorrow. :)
That makes sense for legal POV, and can help in some collaboration case. But I think it's something to push on ECA and related check, not another burden for projects and committers.
