5 ms·
A sign of the times perhaps? It makes sense given the repository, but of course, it does make it challenging to verify the authenticity of the request when, for
by gfo 8y ago
A sign of the times perhaps? It makes sense given the repository, but of course, it does make it challenging to verify the authenticity of the request when, for all we know by looking at the messages, they could be random users.
- xnyanta 8y agoIt does say that they are members of the W3C organization.
- klez 8y agoSo could I. I mean, I see what you mean, but to a casual observer that's not very clear.
- solarkraft 8y agoYour objection is funny. Other methods of communication could be faked. Here you have Github as an authority to check membership and the organisation's repositories as an official place of discussion (perhaps equivalent to the website). You do have to trust that the org is legitimate, but you could also fake a website or a whole organisaion.
- Ajedi32 8y agoGP is referring to the "Member" badge next to the commenter's name, not to any claims made in the comments themselves. You could claim to be a member of the W3C, but unless you actually are that badge won't show up next to your name in the issue tracker.
- apaprocki 8y agoThe GitHub org member list is not going to be an authoritative list of all delegates from all members that all have GH accounts. One of our W3C participants conveyed our objection and he isn't in the GH w3c org member list.
- ubernostrum 8y agoAny group discussion could be "random users" to an outsider. To people at W3C, or even to people who just follow web standards development, the names are pretty instantly recognizable, and presumably since these accounts have been added to the W3C's GitHub org, W3C feels confident that they are who they claim to be.