1 new of 58 responses total.
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.
You have several choices: