Less relevant? You are the CEO of a company which sells Element Home, a product based on Matrix... and you accuse others of not disclosing properly?

An entry in the HN bio should be considered sufficient disclosure.

I disagree, I don't click the bio link for every comment I read. I'd have never known they were the project lead if another commenter didn't call them out on it.

Sorry, but I agree with @gojomo. Making it public in your bio that you are afilliated with a project, is very sufficient disclosure in my opinion.

No one expects you to read every bio of every comment you read, but conversely we shouldn’t expect him to preface every single one of his comments with “Hey guys, I’m the project lead of Matrix.”

Arathorn is very active in comments, and it’s well known to frequent readers he is the project lead of Matrix.

You may want to make clicking through a habit when commercial & project interests may be involved.

HN's minimalist post format isn't amenable to adding such disclosures all the time - but making them available in bios is practical.

You may also want to assume deep undisclosed conflicts may exist whenever there's no bio info at all – as with your user page.

Oh, for all the bigco employees to have their affiliations declared for when they're flacking their company interests under a pseudonym! Oh, for net upvotes/downvotes on highly critical/opinated posts to be cross-tabulated by employer conflicts! Unlikely, but things to think about.

They don't need to add the disclosures all the time - they've got a lot of posts that aren't about Matrix.

But bringing up that you're the project lead of the project your discussing seems like an obvious step.

Clicking through to everyone's profile is only occasionally useful and an impractical suggestion.

When a commenter takes strong stands on the relative merits of projects or commercial products, and there's a whiff of involved partisanship, a clickthrough is pretty easy & wise.

And, it often has the added benefit of more useful credibility context than just revealing blatant conflicts.

It's impractical to expect a commenter to consider, for every comment, "how much involvement in these particular topics should I declare?". That's especially the case on topics for which the commenter often comments, or multiple comments in related threads in a long discussion - where such a standard would be onerous for both the author, and the readers.

Add major affiliations to the bio, and I'd say you're covered for comments related to those affiliations, as it's then easy to check for anyone observing any partisanship, without encumbering all writing/reading with redundant disclosure-noise.

Considered sufficient by who? I sure don't, and this is not a site rule either.

A "…by reasonable readers" can be assumed.

If you want scrupulous disclosure of relevant affiliations inline in every single comment where they could apply, I think you're in the wrong place.

As you note, it's not a site guideline. As I've noted in a sibling thread, it wouldn't fit the minimalist HN presentation, and would place an onerous burden on both writers & readers.

It'd also especially encumber people with deep personal knoweldge and interest in some topics, if every related post required boilerplate "I'm employed by X"/etc inserts.

But putting it in the bio for the curious/suspicious is a very honorable thing to do!

Again, I don't think you speak for all "reasonable readers". I have seen plenty of disclosures on this site, and I think that should be the default.

He did disclose it, he just said he thought it was less relevant (maybe since it doesn't directly answer the question of the post he's replying to..)

The guy gives up additional disclosure information and you see that as an opportunity to make smartass comments

He didn't disclose anything, ameminator did, and he then confirmed.