I don't think anyone is asking you to accommodate them in your choice of
tools or even approve of what they see as barriers. This conversation
started because of an understanding that the poetry folks *do want* to
accommodate others' needs and preferences. Taking that assumption in hand,
I don't think it's useful to dictate what counts as legitimate barriers for
other people. Their participation will be prevented to the same extent
whatever we think of their reasons.

That aside, I can think off-hand of a handful of reasons, near-and-dear to
FOSS, why a project contributor might not want identifying information
associated with their commits, and why the project coordinators might want
to make sure they don't have to. I might be contributing in my personal
time, but concerned that my employer would try to make copyright claims if
they could trace the code back to me. I might be contributing to security
projects like Tor or Whisper Systems, which has been known to cause trouble
at US borders for some people. Or, I might live under an oppressive
government which would object even more strongly to my choice of project.

These issues matter to a lot of us.

- Tom

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Devon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> If you're not willing to provide even your name to make use of a free
> service, then I dare say you are erecting your own barriers. Such is your
> choice, of course, but I don't think others need to be compelled
> to accommodate the barriers you create for yourself.
> And just because the terms of use are not unconditional, or perfectly to
> your liking, does not mean you're not welcome to use it. You are.
> /dev
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:34 AM, MJ Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Shaun Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
> > > * Myth #1 : GitHub creates a barrier to entry.
> >
> > That's a fact, not a myth.  Myself, I won't give GitHub my full legal
> > name and I suspect there are others who won't.  So, we're not welcome
> > there and if we lie to register, all our work would be subject to
> > deletion at an arbitrary future point.
> >
> > There's a couple of other things in the terms which aren't simple, too.
> >
> > [...]
> > > * Myth #4 : GitHub is monopolizing open source software development.
> > >  > "... to its unfortunate centralizing of so much free/open
> > >  > source software on one platform.)"
> > >
> > > Convergence is not always a bad thing. GitHub provides a great, free
> > > service with lots of helpful collaboration tools beyond version
> control.
> > >   It's natural that people would flock there, despite having lots of
> > > other options.
> >
> > Whether or not it's a deliberate monopolising attempt, I don't think
> > that's the full reason.  It's not only natural effect.  There's a
> > sneaky lock-in effect of having one open tool (git hosting) which is
> > fairly easy to move in and out and interoperate with, linked to other
> > closed tools (such as their issues tracker and their non-git pull
> > requests system) which are harder to move out or interoperate.
> >
> > Use github if you like.  Just don't expect everyone to do so.
> >
> > Hope that explains,
> > --
> > MJ Ray (slef), member of, a for-more-than-profit
> co-op.
> > supporter, web and library systems developer.
> > In My Opinion Only: see
> > Available for hire (including development) at
> >
> --
> Sent from my GMail account.