Hi Florian! Thanks for joining the AGILE Discourse!
Short papers will not be reviewed for reproducibility - we don’t have the bandwidth for that yet.
Regarding the anonymity: even for full papers, authors do not provide all information to stay anonymous, that is why we have the reproducibility review after the submissions are accepted. Anita’s case just shows that is not trivial to create an anonymous deposit, and the authors should have been more careful.
More generally: I understand where you’re coming from, but the advantages of double blind reviews are seen quite critically by more and more researchers. Authors can often easily be deanonymised (via previous work, for example) especially in small disciplines, and it has been shown that reviewers are more friendly and fair when they cannot hide behind anonymity. That said, I am a fan of the idea that tenured researchers should sign their reviews, while early career researchers may stay anonymous and have the opportunity to call out bad work when they might fear bad outcomes because they review a senior persons work.