GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 501700
bug-buddy should not assume a default email address
Last modified: 2007-12-06 23:14:56 UTC
bug-buddy should not assume a default email address most people (I assume) use an pseudonym to file bugs from rather than their default/personal email address for privacy reasons bug-buddy grabbing the default email from evolution (I assume again) undoes this basic attempt at user privacy Other information: just leave the field blank for the user to enter as they wish
That is why it: - shows you the email address - allows you to change it
Well, how about at least a dialogue that requires some positive user choice rather than making wildly presumptuous assumptions (bordering on the arrogant) about how your end users wish to participate in the project. Perhaps the sort of decision that is likely to endear your end users to the project rather than offend them.
(In reply to comment #2) > Well, how about at least a dialogue that requires some positive user choice That dialog already exists. > rather than making wildly presumptuous assumptions (bordering on the arrogant) > about how your end users wish to participate in the project. Perhaps the sort It is arrogant to set a default email address? wtf?!? > of decision that is likely to endear your end users to the project rather than > offend them. I assume with the general speak you mean that I offended you somehow. If a disagreement offends you, well.. I see how you can blame me, but I am not going to change my opinion because of it.
definitely WONTFIX, because you CAN change the address. if we wouldn't add an address by default, people would complain that they have to enter it manually.
Yes, I do find it rude that you would take someone's address with out asking - it seems very impolite at the very least. What I suggested above is simply that you ask.
you DO get asked, but if you don't read the dialog there's not much we can do.
No, if you asked then you would require an affirmative response before proceeding. You don't ask, you assume. One is polite, the other is not (unless you are familiar with the person concerned, which you are not - though perhaps we are becoming more familiar). And, as I alluded to above, taking someone's address (identity) without asking for and getting their assent might be considered by some as somewhat more serious then mere impoliteness.
(In reply to comment #7) > No, if you asked then you would require an affirmative response before > proceeding. See the 'Please review the crash details' message. It explicitly warns about sensitive details. > You don't ask, you assume. That is what the explicit 'Send' button, so you could review everything (not only the email address) before submitting. > One is polite, the other is not (unless you are familiar with the person > concerned, which you are not - though perhaps we are becoming more familiar). > > And, as I alluded to above, taking someone's address (identity) without asking > for and getting their assent might be considered by some as somewhat more > serious then mere impoliteness. It does ask you to review (more than just) the email address.
i've written the sentence "if you don't read the dialog there's not much we can do." here already, and it seems like you haven't read the bug-buddy dialog before clicking "send". discussing with people that click away a window without reaqding it and then complaining about their actions doesn't really lead to any solution, i guess. time to unsubscribe from this report.
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > No, if you asked then you would require an affirmative response before > > proceeding. > > See the 'Please review the crash details' message. It explicitly warns about > sensitive details. Oh come on, the crash details contain no information about the address gnome bugzilla will use to (publicly) identify the submitter > > > You don't ask, you assume. > > That is what the explicit 'Send' button, so you could review everything (not > only the email address) before submitting. "Send" is not an answer to: Can we use email address <x@y.z> to identify you and publish that information? Answers to that question are "yes" or "no" > > > One is polite, the other is not (unless you are familiar with the person > > concerned, which you are not - though perhaps we are becoming more familiar). > > > > And, as I alluded to above, taking someone's address (identity) without asking > > for and getting their assent might be considered by some as somewhat more > > serious then mere impoliteness. > > It does ask you to review (more than just) the email address. As I said, the reviewed info does not contain the email address. And even if it did, I wouldn't consider it sufficiently explicit. For what it is, it's very useful - I've used it to munge sensitive email addresses contained in the debug info. At this point, perhaps I could share what I understand to be gnomes privacy policy (http://foundation.gnome.org/legal/): *Sharing Your Personal Information* Unless you assent, GNOME Foundation will never share the personal information you provide to us except as described below. ...
(In reply to comment #9) > i've written the sentence "if you don't read the dialog there's not much we can > do." here already, and it seems like you haven't read the bug-buddy dialog > before clicking "send". "A valid email address is required. This will allow the developers to contact you for more information if necessary. ... Your email address: x@y.z" Sorry, did I miss the question about using that email address to publicly identify the sender? Perhaps I can suggest a solution. Obviously, making the request is going to frighten some people off - but, I'm afraid the issue can't be avoided by obfuscation. It's tough, but obfuscation simply leaves the bug-buddy project, gnome-bugzilla and gnome foundation open to attack. So: The email address field should be a drop down menu of all email address of the user. And, it should default to "none". And, it should be made explicit that that email will be published - perhaps a pop up dialogue triggered by the selection of an address that puts the question and is satisfied by clicking a "yes" or "no" button.
Created attachment 100374 [details] a picture. > "Send" is not an answer to: > Can we use email address <x@y.z> to identify you and publish that information? > Answers to that question are "yes" or "no" oh my god, another "are you really really sure you want to click this button? if you click this button, the application will do what is described in the label of the button". i have marked the relevant areas in this screenshot. they are a good compromise of being clear *AND* short. if you instead would like to spend 10 minutes reading a long essay about the usage of your email address and click a few buttons more to maximize the wasting of user's time, cool. but you probably would like to use another desktop suite for this.
(In reply to comment #12) > Created an attachment (id=100374) [edit] > a picture. ... > i have marked the relevant areas in this screenshot... Yes, as per my quote above (Comment #11). All I can do at this stage is reiterate that by making (perhaps incorrect) assumptions about the user, the programme seems to violate gnome's privacy statement. http://foundation.gnome.org/legal/ Is that what's intended?
> http://foundation.gnome.org/legal/ This is about information send to the board. AKA board@gnome.org. That is not bugzilla.gnome.org, nor a general privacy policy. I'm sorry you didn't read the dialog. I don't think adding another dialog will help.
(In reply to comment #14) > > http://foundation.gnome.org/legal/ > > This is about information send to the board. AKA board@gnome.org. That is not > bugzilla.gnome.org, nor a general privacy policy. I'm sorry you didn't read the > dialog. I don't think adding another dialog will help. > It is not relevant whether or not I (or anyone else) did or didn't read a dialogue. The bug is titled: bug-buddy should not assume a default email address It shouldn't. It's not a matter that's open to a nice compromise - either it's right or it's wrong. It is wrong, so it should be made right.
(In reply to comment #15) > It is not relevant whether or not I (or anyone else) did or didn't read a > dialogue. > > The bug is titled: > bug-buddy should not assume a default email address I'm responding to an argument you made, > It shouldn't. It's not a matter that's open to a nice compromise - either it's > right or it's wrong. It is wrong, so it should be made right. I am sorry, but none of the arguments you raised have convinced me that the current method is wrong, The only point that I'd like to check is whether the current text makes it clear enough that GNOME is open source. Meaning: the whole bug investigation is done publicly. However, even if that is not clear, I'd like to fix that by changing the text. Filling in the eds email address yes or no is not something that would change the text.