Looking for feedback on Fedora COC Enforcement Draft

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 03/02/2011 04:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, my strong opinion is that we do not require any explicit signing of
> this, instead we note that it's the case for "everyone who is using
> Fedora project resources".

Agreed.

What's the purpose of explicit requiring signing of COCE if the biggest 
question of them all still remains unanswered. . .

If we take the worst possible outcome and we have to expel one of our 
own what's preventing him to return under a new *online* entity

Today we expelled "John" and tomorrow he returns to the community as 
"Jane".. . .

It only comes logical that if you got corporate entity and it's managers 
breathing down your neck, effectively preventing you from expressing 
yourself freely  you work around that by creating alternative identity 
untraceable by that corporate entity and it's managers and for various 
other reasons.

Having several on-line identities is actually coming very common these 
days and generally worldwide accepted thanks to Corporates + privacy 
issues, Facebook and other social networking sites where it's common 
that people create 3 separates accounts one for family, one for work and 
one for friends hence I would not be surprised if some people exist 
under multiple identities already within our community on irc, mailing 
lists etc. and express themselves differently depending on which mask 
they wear that day..

So it's ilogical to require any explicit signing of anything if you cant 
enforce that agreement should someone break it..

JBG