On 11/06/15 03:05, B Galliart wrote: > On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 1:45:09 PM UTC-5, David Rajchenbach-Teller > wrote: >> I haven't followed the entirety of this thread, but I believe that Dan's >> arguments make sense. Perhaps we should file bugs and discuss the future >> of Pocket integration with Product Management? >> > > We have done that. It was bug #1172126 [1].
Apparently, we do not understand Dan's arguments in the same manner. The bug you quote is about removing Pocket Integration. As we can see from the current thread, well, this deserves at the very least an open discussion, and Bugzilla is an awful medium for that. What I read of Dan's arguments is that we should open the feature. This could be translated, for instance, as the following set of bugs: - Provide a simple way to erase user data forever from Pocket's servers [for instance as an item of the "Clear History" button]; - Give users the ability to use Sync instead of Pocket's servers for storing their bookmarks [note that this might be tricky, because providing disk space for hundreds of millions of users is quite expensive]; - Give users the ability to store/recover their bookmarks using a variety of protocols (ftp server, dropbox, google drive, ...); - Publish specifications on the communications between Firefox and Pocket's servers as an open protocol; - ... Did I misread Dan's comments? If so, apologies. > > According to the bug's history[2], it took less than 90 minutes for Tyler > Downer, Project Manager for the User Advocacy team, to determine the bug was > INVALID and "RESOLVED." It was then suggested the discussion by taken over > here instead. > > It feel to me like we are being swept under the run (and by the User Advocacy > team no less). In the mean time, Pocket(TM) is not providing any > clarification on their agreement at *install* Terms of Service and Privacy > Policy. My guess is they don't feel the need to respond since they already > are being fast tracked. > > This whole situation reminds me of the late 1980's "shrink-wrap" licenses > where a sticker notified you that you agreed to the license inside the box by > breaking the shrink wrap to open the box. Only now it is that you agree by > installing an integrated Pocket(TM) platform software when you may not even > be aware of (and it's terms) until it is already installed. And I love the > part about a Privacy Policy that can be completely changed to whatever > Pocket(TM) wants just by silently posting a new one online and waiting 30 > days (including new terms applied to data already previously collected). > Raise your hand if you want to re-visit the Pocket(TM) Privacy Policy web > page every 30 days to check if you still agree to having the software > installed (it doesn't even matter if you are using it)! There is literally > not a single irrevocable term provided on the user's behalf. [...] I can understand why you feel that way. I am personally not very happy about the fast-tracking involved. But I believe that the best way forward right now is to take this as an opportunity to: 1. improve Firefox further; 2. determine if/where we have made any mistakes and how to not make them again. The possible bugs above are examples on how we could do 1., and a few of us have proposals in the pipe that may improve 2 (not ready for prime-time yet, though). Best regards, David -- David Rajchenbach-Teller, PhD Performance Team, Mozilla _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
