As has been mentioned elsewhere - names aren't mentioned in the list.

Also even with anonymity although such a system maybe open for abuse, so that people can implicate innocent people, the potential to allow actual victims to speak up who wouldn't otherwise seems worth the risk

This reminds me of the whole metadata collection scandal/argument, because this is what is being shared - metadata. Just because you don't name a person directly, does not yet imply anonymity.

Another observation - the article states that people aren't "usually" named. I don't see anything preventing the peoples names appearing later on, as this thing develops.

As far as I can tell, it's run for employees by employees. If it ever starts doing more harm than good, it will just stop. People have to want to submit and want to read it.

So I don't see this as management sponsored spying, just employees wanting more transparency. To highlight what actually goes on.

I believe the point with the 'usually' was that the only one who had been named was Eric Schmidt from a open meeting.

Yeah, the anonymous accused get sent straight to the gulag.