[llvm-dev] IMPORTANT: LLVM Bugzilla migration

[James Y Knight via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021, 1:59 AM Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>
wrote:

> >> > If we can attribute it to an anonymous entity, e.g. by putting
> "Anonymous LLVM Contributor 123 wrote:" at the top of a comment by llvmbot,
> at least readers can understand whether two comments on a bug are from the
> same person or from different people, for example. Can we at least do
> something like that?
> >> We do this for issues. They are marked as submitted by "LLVM Bugzilla
> >> Contributor".
> > As I said, the purpose would be to allow disambiguating multiple
> anonymous contributors, e.g. by suffixing a unique number to each anonymous
> contributor. The reply misses that point.
> Thanks for the comment. However, no, it does not. We cannot suffix and
> separate different anonymous contributions. I do not want to dig deep
> into details, but some regulations require us to ensure that the
> author of the data cannot be traced back when the origin of anonymized
> data is removed. This requirement is quite vague and quite new, but
> still we have to comply with it. One way of doing this is to "pool"
> all anonymous contributions so they will be indistinguishable from
> each other from the author standpoint.


Thank you for this explanation! That is unfortunate, but it is now
perfectly understandable why my suggestion is completely infeasible. (And
I'm sorry you have had to become so deeply familiar with these regulations,
it sounds quite annoying.)

Is it also disallowed to disambiguate the speakers within a *single* bug/thread
of conversation? (E.g. the first author who posts in a given bug thread is
always "1", second is "2" -- not assigning a unique id to a person across
the whole migration.) In that way, it's impossible to track an unidentified
person across issues, but you still can still follow the flow of the
conversation.

It seems "reasonable" that it would be acceptable to de-identify a
participant's contributions to a single conversation as a whole, rather
than each individual statement separately. However, I don't know anything
about what this regulation requires, and regulations are *definitely* not
always reasonable or logical.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20211123/22d53e6d/attachment.html>