The placeholder username of admin-posted discussions is very confusing

[typed-sigterm]

Discussion Type

Bug

Discussion Content

When a discussion is posted as admin, it's shown as <OWNER_NAME> Admin and the avatar is the repo owner's avatar.

It seems to be okay here:

But how about this:

There's two problems:

1. The repo is owned by a peronsal account, what's the meaning of John Doe Admin?
2. As the blog describes, the feature only requires admin permission of the repo, not the org. That's saying collaborators can do that, not the admin of the org

This feature actually introduced an "anonymous" identity system in the discussion, but it doesn't seem to have been properly designed and appears to have been rushed out :(

[Archit086]

This is a fair concern. If the repository is owned by a personal account, calling someone “John Doe Admin” is confusing because there is no organization context there, so the label doesn’t really mean anything. On top of that, the blog itself says the feature only checks for admin permission on the repository, not admin rights on the organization, which means any collaborator with admin access could appear under this anonymous “Admin” identity. That makes the naming misleading and blurs the line between actual org admins and regular repo collaborators. It really does feel like an anonymous identity layer was added to discussions without clearly defining the roles or edge cases, and the whole thing looks a bit rushed and under-thought.