I think there are three possible stances here. Either you have nobody knowing your real name, somebody knowing your real name or everybody knowing your real nam

I think there are three possible stances here. Either you have nobody knowing your real name, somebody knowing your real name or everybody knowing your real name. Many open source projects use the first one, the article advocates for the third one, but I personally find the second one least objectionable. In the current culture, a "full real name" policy is almost unachievable because of the backlash from trans folks, who may not be able to change their legal name (this is very hard or even impossible in some countries), but yet don't want to see their old name on a daily basis. Whether you find the backslash to be entirely justified or caused by "woke people and their vile woke ways" is completely beside the point, the backlash will happen and you have to contend with it somehow. There are also bias-related implications here, if you're part of a minority that is often discriminated against, you may want to adopt a name that doesn't immediately give that fact away. I think a good compromise here would be to introduce some kind of "verified" badge for Github accounts. This badge would only be given to people who pass an ID and liveness check, enable 2FA on their accounts, use an avatar of themselves or no avatar at all, indicate the country they live in on their profile (consistent with the country of issue of their document), and either use their real name or a name that is clearly a pseudonym. Repo owners could then limit contributions to such verified badge holders. Such a step shouldn't be taken lightly, this would massively limit the amount of contributions for such repos, particularly from "conscientious objectors" to GitHub's business practices, but would perhaps be a good choice for libraries requiring very little maintenance and with massive security implications.