response 33 of 58:

Sep 4 22:32 UTC 2006

Regarding #21; It's absolutely neat!  But that doesn't justify the ID
requirement.

Regardig #29; I suppose the real question is, how can you substantiate the
claim that the ID policy does good, by preventing abuse?  I think that it was
Mary Remmers who once said that a photocopy of my NYC Public Library card,
which pretty much just has a mag strip and says, "New York Public Library"
on it, would be acceptable ID.  But there's really nothing on it that would
allow one to track it back to me.  So, what's the point?  In particular,
that's a completely ineffective form of ID, yet meets the requirements, so
the value of that ID is questionable, at best.

But anyway, if the ID policy has never been used, then there just isn't enough
data to say that it's really doing any good.  It may be, but we can't say one
way or another.  We all seem to agree that it does some amount of harm, by
discouraging at least some donators.  I'll submit that that amount of harm
is probably relatively minor: I think very few people have objected so
strenuously.  Now the question, however, does the potential for benefit
outweigh the established costs?  I imagine it does, but clearly others
disagree.  There's certainly no harm in discussing it.  Which leads me to....

Regarding #31; Your anti-polytarp bias is showing.  David can certainly be
a git sometimes, that doesn't make what he's talking about right now of any
less value.  Theo De Raadt can be a HUGE git at times, yet you don't object
to running his software, after all.