On 5/1/14 10:43 AM, Pascal Chevrel wrote:
> Was Piwik and other analytics solutions evaluated or was it just a
> direct decision to go to GA because we know it scales to our needs and
> everybody use it? If Piwik was evaluated and some features were missing,
> did we open bugs, communicate with Piwik and expressed our needs? If
> not, why? Which community members (not employees) were involved in the
> project?
I imagine Stacy Martin is a good person to ask, given she posted the
original thread.
> I think there is a disconnect between how employees see stuff and how
> our community and users get to conclusions with the same data.
> Employees, especially in the US were culture seems to be very focused on
> contracts and private law, think that as long as a contract is signed
> and exists between two companies, the problem is fixed. Our community
> members don't trust those contracts, first because they don't have
> access to it, and second because if they don't trust the party that
> signed the contract, they won't trust the protection this contract will
> bring them.
That's a good point. I meant to imply that the existence of a contract
can help increase trust, rather than "contract = solved", but your
point
still stands; if the users don't trust Google, it's likely they
wouldn't
trust a contract signed by them (and I can argue until I'm blue in the
face that having consequences for violating our trust is an important
factor, and that won't change people's distrust of Google).
Is the question here about whether Google can actually be trusted, or
is
it about perception? In other words, are we worried that Google is
actually misusing the data, or are we worried that it _looks_ like
Google could be misusing the data? Or are we just worried that Google
_could_ misuse the data, hence Piwik and other locally-hosted
solutions
being the suggestion?
> The trust our community has in us is not a given, it exists because we
> have demonstrated in the past that we do good. When our community is
> warning us that in some areas, we are breaking their trust and they see
> a profound disconnect between our messaging and our actions, I think we
> should listen to them and not discard their opinion just because
> decisions are easier to take around the coffee machine among employees,
> all living in the same area, from the same universities, with similar
> curriculums than in public with the wider global world that Mozilla is ;)
Agreed! I'm glad we're having this discussion, regardless of whether
we
decide (who decides anyway?) to keep GA or to toss it.
- Mike Kelly
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
