If you want to make an exception to pseudonymity and require real name disclosure for volunteers in such a post then a post on a talkpage or on this mailing list isn't enough to get a change. You or someone else would need to start a request for comment, presumably on meta, and you'd need enough to agree with you to get consensus.
It would be a big change from the principle of only requiring real names for paid staff, and for volunteers such as trustees who are in roles where it is legally required.
>
> Nataliia,
>
> Thanks for your prompt response. You have made your decision, and if you
> have solicited applications for the Committee on the basis that the members
> may remain pseudonymous, then I would not expect you to resile from that.
> However for the next round perhaps you may wish to reconsider your policy
> in the light of two points.
>
> Firstly, I am not suggesting that members of the Committee be required to
> link their real names and Wikimedia handles. I am suggesting that they be
> required to act under their real names. This allows a transparent exercise
> of their powers to, for example, bar candidates from standing for
> nomination to the Board, and make it clear to the community in general and
> the potential candidates in particular, where they might have a conflict of
> interest. If a potential member of the Election Committee canot take the
> risk of associating their name with the Foundation for fear of reprisals,
> then that is regrettable, but the same would be true if they wished to
> stand for the Board. There must be a balance between transparency and
> getting the best candidates and in this case I suggest that you have struck
> the balance in the wrong place.
>
> Secondly, it has been claimed by Adrian that there is no need for this, as
> he has been involved in government elections and has never been required to
> disclose his name to the electors. I do not know which government he is
> referring to, or how important a role he had in the election process, but
> in the stable mature democracy where I live, the members of the electoral
> commission are publicly named, the returning officers with responsibility
> for conducting the elections are named (and are usually elected officials),
> the count is conducted in a public forum, often televised, to which the
> candidates have right of access, and the returning officers announce the
> results in public, explicitly giving their names as part of the
> announcement. I think that you can afford to be as transparent as that.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv <
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>
Locked
