SussexSocialist wrote:I think
So three people have “raised this issue” – so what? At the March meeting of Kent & Sussex this issue was discussed by the four members present and none of them had the slightest objection to their full names being published. A further three absent members who are fully aware of the practice have not become exercised either. That’s “the tyranny of the majority” as somebody once described democracy. But as one member aptly put it:-“We’re revolutionaries; what have we got to hide? We’ve nothing to lose but our chains………and our anonymity!”This really has become something of a hobby-horse in relation to K&SRB and yet two other branches also publish their minutes online complete with full names of those present and those apologising for their absence. Not heard any objection from you or the others though. Neither also about the EC minutes, published online with full names of those present and absent and again when divisions are called. Nor too are there any qualms about Conference or ADM minutes containing full names of those contributing to the discussion.I’ll say it again – for the final time; those in K&SRB who object to their names being published in full are free to be referred to by their initials only. Only one member has thus far elected this option but paradoxically that same person has no problem with their full name appearing at the foot of Socialist Standard articles………