On Fri, 7 May 2004, Casey Duncan wrote:
> On Fri, 07 May 2004 09:56:45 +0100
> Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tim Peters wrote:
> > > While that *should* be a good example, it isn't: I only knew that
> > > bug existed because someone closed it on Bug Day (and I'm subscribed
> > > to the Collectors, and read the email they generate).
> > *bangs head against desk*
> > > Some bugs are so vaguely described nobody could guess -- and when
> > > they're anonymous too, there's no effective way to get more info.
> > > Those ought to be closed.
> > Indeed.
> > How about removing the ability for people to post bugs withotu
> > specifying n email address? And, if they do specify an email address,
> > using that to contact them by sending notification mails to it?
> No, some very valuable bugs are submitted anonymously. People can be
> very paranoid (rightly) about their privacy. We do want to encourage bug
> submissions even if that means more noise.
Right. The business rationale for allowing anonymous postings was "it's
kinda bogus to require someone to become a member of the community in
order to do the community the favor of submitting a bug report."
> AFAIK the collector does mail the poster on state change if they have an
> email address.
I think that's right. I worried a little bit about the potential for
mischief, but not much, and it hasn't proved to be a problem.
> > For all I know, this happens already, but people don't perceive it as
> > happening so the ythink "anonymous" bug postings will never be heard
> > from and so close them straight away as "anonymous, therefor we don't
> > care"
> Nope, many times we do care. But when we don't we will close them.
> To be clear: big -1 on restricting anonymous posting
I don't think non-member posting is going to be restricted.
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -