Proactive transparency in situations like these is very important,
because that is the only way not to undermine your own credibility.

Is there any way that the enforcement of rules can be made more equal
for all services and developers? The last issue I encountered (Brian
has the details) is where, a full four months after he asked me to
remove something, I noticed another service that is very well-known to
you, that is still doing exactly the same thing in a more egregious
form than what my service ever did. If it were a few days after I
could have chalked it up to still being in the process, but 4 months
cannot be chalked up to that.

And this is the second time that this kind of inequality has happened
to me.

On Sep 14, 1:09 pm, Ryan Sarver <rsar...@twitter.com> wrote:
> Ed,
> As part of the migration we worked with many developers to help them with
> the transition and some of them, including our own Android app, had some
> extenuating circumstances that made them unable to make the date. For those
> few exceptions and extreme cases we granted them a stay of execution as long
> as they provided a reasonable timeline to make the transition.
> It pained us to do it for one of our own applications, but I'll give you
> some detail to help you understand why we needed to. And to be clear, we did
> this for a number of non-Twitter applications as well if we deemed their
> situation to be one that needed the stay as well. In the end all of the apps
> that got the stay were mobile apps that were unable to flash new versions
> out to devices on their own schedule and that includes the Android app on a
> number of devices.
> We have a hard shut-off date from Google which is only a few weeks away and
> from every other app that was given an exemption. Rest assured that EVERY
> app will be moved over in a timely fashion, so using their keys will only
> give you a short window to continue to use Basic Auth.
> When looking at all the possible options and scenarios, we think this was
> the right decision in order to move the entire ecosystem over to the new
> authentication model while also being reasonable when we needed to be.
> Best, Ryan
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:40 PM, funkatron <funkat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Read on this post:http://blog.nelhage.com/2010/09/dear-twitter/
> > Tested just now:http://gist.github.com/577273
> > If I pass "source=twitterandroid", it appears to work on all API
> > methods.
> > In light of basic auth being "disabled," why does this work?
> > --
> > Ed Finkler
> >http://funkatron.com
> > @funkatron
> > AIM: funka7ron / ICQ: 3922133 / 
> > XMPP:funkat...@gmail.com<xmpp%3afunkat...@gmail.com>
> > --
> > Twitter developer documentation and resources:http://dev.twitter.com/doc
> > API updates via Twitter:http://twitter.com/twitterapi
> > Issues/Enhancements Tracker:
> >http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list
> > Change your membership to this group:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk?hl=en

Twitter developer documentation and resources: http://dev.twitter.com/doc
API updates via Twitter: http://twitter.com/twitterapi
Issues/Enhancements Tracker: http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list
Change your membership to this group: 

Reply via email to