We need to agree on requirements before we can measure the value of any proposed solution.
I don't think that's at all obvious. The technical reason seems to be that people won't be able to find each other, but that's just not true: people can converge on the same value in the same way that write-in ballots in elections work. As for abuse, in a writein field it's much easier because we just need to filter for obviously objectionable content in the same way we do in (say) people's names, not make political decisions. That depends entirely on the implementation. Early on in Mozillians it was impossible to find everyone in the same reason with a single search because of how the info was stored and how the search was performed. If you wanted to find everyone in Utah for example, that depended on people filling in their state information. Also it relied on the information not being stored as Provo-Utah or Provo/Utah. So it is a requirement that people be able to find each other, a good solution will fulfill this requirement, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to have a bad solution that would fail. On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
