Re: Looking Glass addon experience should be stopped asap
On 12/16/17 3:35 PM, Jean-Bernard Marcon wrote: I am surprised nobody raised the issue already (maybe I missed the right channel) It's been raised, though not all the channels that it's been raised on are public. Note that the Looking Glass addon has been unshipped already, though that may not yet have propagated out to all Firefox installs. -Boris P.S. I posted this to the mozilla.governance newsgroup two days ago, but it hasn't appeared on the list/group yet... ___ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
Re: Looking Glass addon experience should be stopped asap
On 12/16/17 4:09 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: Yes this is a privacy and ethical issue Benjamin, What, exactly, is the privacy issue? The addon involved does invade privacy in any way I am aware of (especially given that it does nothing at all, privacy-related or otherwise, unless a certain preference is toggled in about:config). There are various issues here, but privacy is not in fact one of them. -Boris P.S. I posted this to the mozilla.governance newsgroup two days ago, but I don't see it on the list so far. ___ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
Re: Looking Glass addon experience should be stopped asap
Injecting addons whether enabled or disabled into a set of users based on their geographic location is a privacy issue. On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:29 AM Boris Zbarsky via governance < governance@lists.mozilla.org> wrote: > On 12/16/17 4:09 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: > > Yes this is a privacy and ethical issue > > Benjamin, > > What, exactly, is the privacy issue? The addon involved does invade > privacy in any way I am aware of (especially given that it does nothing > at all, privacy-related or otherwise, unless a certain preference is > toggled in about:config). > > There are various issues here, but privacy is not in fact one of them. > > -Boris > > P.S. I posted this to the mozilla.governance newsgroup two days ago, but > I don't see it on the list so far. > ___ > governance mailing list > governance@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > -- Benjamin Kerensa ___ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
Re: Looking Glass addon experience should be stopped asap
On 12/19/17 3:04 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: Injecting addons whether enabled or disabled into a set of users based on their geographic location is a privacy issue. Ah, I didn't realize this addon was injected based on geographic location. That said, it's a privacy issue only if the existence of the addon can be remotely detected, right? Can it be, in this case? (If it can, then I agree that this is a serious problem.) -Boris ___ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
Rust Peers list?
Hi, An idea came up in Austin of having a "Rust Peers" list. Because Rust expertise is unevenly spread, sometimes a patch author or patch reviewer might want a Rust expert to review a patch from the point of view of whether it is reasonable Rust code. (E.g. I did this in bug 1423840, where I got glandium to review the patch from a prefs module point of view, and Manish to review the patch from a Rust point of view.) Because this might be a common need, it seems worth formalizing. I have been asking around and the following people have agreed to perform this role. - Alexis Beingessner - Josh Bowman-Matthews - Emilio Cobos Alvarez - Manish Goregaokar - Nika Layzell - Cameron McCormack All of these people have extensive Rust experience. (The list could also be extended, but this is enough people to start.) The question I have is: should this be a Mozilla module? I can see arguments in favour and against it being a module. - In favour: these people do reviews, and the modules list is the canonical place for finding reviewers. - Against: these would be opt-in reviews. If a patch author is confident in their Rust ability, and the "normal" reviewer is likewise confident, then an extra review from a Rust Peer would not be necessary. We already have a "C++/Rust usage, tools, and style" module ( https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All#C.2B.2B.2FRust_usage.2C_tools.2C_and_style) but that feels different to me. If we choose to make this a module, I'm not sure which section of https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All it would fall under. If we choose not to make this a module, I guess this list of people would instead be put onto https://wiki.mozilla.org/Oxidation. What do people think? Thanks. Nick ___ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
