Using publisher rather than author as the prefix for a patch makes sense. However, upon reflection, I'm not going to rename the tags I published to anarki from "anarki.hack.0" to "rntz.hack.0"; I think using "anarki" as the publisher makes as much sense as using "anarki" as the author. In particular, if I publish a patch as, say "rntz.simplify-halve.0", then it would be rude for someone else to publish a patch as "rntz.simplify-halve.1", because they're not me. So they'd have to do it as, say, "johndoe.simplify-halve.0". But this destroys the sense of progression, from release 0 to release 1. It's the difference between contributing to a project and forking it. By saying that a patch is published by "anarki", a publicly-writable project, I'm inviting people to improve it and release it under the same moniker - the same way anarki itself, a publicly writable community repository, allows people to improve on the works of others. So I think using "anarki" as a community label for publishing patches is still a legitimate idea, because it stands for a useful distinction.
I think there's no problem with that as long as you have some mechanism that helps people not publish hacks out of Anarki that end up with the same label.
For example, I haven't tried it, but if git prevents me by default (if I don't use a force option or something) from pushing a tag to a repository that already has that tag, and you're using tags for the label, then that would do the trick.
