How so? I’m already contributing with an account that is astoundingly easy to resolve to my real name. Adding government issued ID to that equation would change nothing for me.
I guess it might be problematic if you want to contribute to politically controversial stuff.
Nowhere do I say that nobody has anything to hide. Hell, I have stuff to hide, but none of that is connected to my public Github account.
I was simply challenging the assertation that contributions would dry up when required to identify yourself, and I don’t think that’s true. I can’t be the only one that has only a mildly pseudonymous account.
Great for you, I guess there'll be lots of work for you to do if that were to happen.
For my part, I do a little open source for fun in my free time. That works for me because I'm reasonably anonymous, i.e. any mishaps or bad blood from entitled users can't really affect me in other ways. Bugs happen, stupid security fuck-ups happen, irrational demands happen, but all that can reasonably do is burn my GitHub identity.
That's important to me, I'm not out to build another stressful career as an unpaid provider of first-class software and services, I just sometimes share what I build for myself anyway. If every single thing I do is transparently connected to my real identity, I'll move everything I do to my private Gitea and it'll stay there. That's no big deal for the general public, none of my things are very popular or important, but I guess others will feel the same and their stuff might be. I'd hate for this to die because greedy corps want their free labor to happen in a panopticon.
It's nice that you Have Nothing to Hide, but not everyone wants to - or can - live like that. It's not just politically sensitive stuff (though that's a good reason); some of us like having privacy, and there's no reason that we should have to give up our pseudonymity or anonymity in order to share our code with the world.
An individuals anonymity does not take precedence over a professional supply chain that requires transparency, especially in the context of Top-N packages. The Linux kernel is one such example that does not accept anonymous contributions.
> An individuals anonymity does not take precedence over a professional supply chain that requires transparency
An individual may choose to not be an unpaid yet completely exposed part of such a professional supply chain, to be pressured and shamed in real life by whoever sees fit to do so. There should be such a supply chain, by all means, run by companies for companies with paid or otherwise fairly compensated contributors, vetted and named and identified and badged and protected by corporate legal, but I'm quite sure forcing the wider open source community into that mold would destroy most of what makes it so successful.
The flip side is that individuals don't owe anyone anything. You want to build your "professional supply chain" out of code by individual contributors who just want to share with the world? That's fine, but don't go thinking you can make demands of them just because you wanted to build a business on their good will.
Is the assertion here that people who have a troublesome family history, or a stalker, or debt, or who wish to change their lives, or are from a place where their social or racial group might be persecuted, or who simply wish to write code separately from their day-to-day, should not be allowed to do so?
I guess it might be problematic if you want to contribute to politically controversial stuff.