On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 2015-05-25 11:20 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>
>> OK, then you and I disagree here. I'd prefer to accommodate such people
>> by giving them a freeform field.
>>
>
> Do you disagree with a "free-form field + autocomplete for existing
> entries", similar to the way tagging is typically done in web apps, for
> example?
I could live with a list plus a free-form field of the type you indicate.
> If curated, what should
>>
>> be the conditions? If not curated, what if I want to put in
>> "Sealand",
>> "Mars", or "People's Republic of Fuck You"?
>>
>>
>> I believe it's fine to ignore such cases when coming up with general
>> rules, and treat them as spam and deal with them as such.
>>
>> Note that the users can already enter such unhelpful information in
>> other free-form (or pseduo-free-form) fields, such as the name
>> field, and we don't need to worry about such cases more than
>> worrying about any other spamming scenario.
>>
>>
>> Well, that's why I put in Sealand, since at least at one point there
>> were in fact people claiming it was a sovereign jurisdiction. The line
>> between "legitimate disagreement" and "spam" seems pretty fuzzy.
>>
>
> I would be perfectly happy with trusting the module system to navigate
> those fuzzy cases.
>
Yeah, I think that's unwise for the reasons I indicated.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
