Let me start by pointing out that that was one out of 21 points I made.
If there is disagreement about this being a requirement - ok.
Anyway, my reason for suggesting that as a requirement was twofold:
* The parallelism with tracking vs non-tracking of changes in
single-user editing sessions (i.e. how LO works right now).
* The sense that if we don't satisfy users of there being decent
identity-scrubbing for collaborative editing, this will deter some
people in some circumstances of utilizing this feature; for which reason
it should be more than an afterthought and a consideration from the
get-go. Remember that one of the benefits this approach will offer over
centralized, third-party-server-based collaboration is exactly that of
better privacy or anonymity.
Michael Hawkins provided some additional scenarios from more corporate
settings. Mine are more "personal", and are actually based in real life
situations of people I know. Naturally, they were not doing
collaborative on-line editing, but there was collaboration whose
participants wanted to keep discreet.
Eyal
On 26/07/2024 14:20, Felix Queisler wrote:
@Eyal: Is the scenario based in something other than fantasy? Right now
it seems more like feature creep to me.
If it can be validated, then it seems to me there could simply be an
export flag to create a sanitized document. Like you can export photos
in some software excluding metadata for privacy reasons.
Best,
Felix
Am 25. Juli 2024, 18:11 +0200 schrieb Eyal Rozenberg <eyalr...@gmx.com>:
1.
Suppose Alice is working on a formal letter which she intends to send to
scary company Bob Corporation. Charlie is helping Alice draft her
letter, but Charlie has his own history with BobCo, and so does not want
his name to be mentioned on the document in any way.
Now, Alice can tell Bob: "Don't worry, I'll finalize the letter before
sending it so that your name won't appear on it." but Charlie, who is
not a techy person and is not experienced with "track changes" and such,
is not easy with having to rely on her promise that "it will be ok". He
sees his name all over the text: "Charlie wrote:", "Charlie says:" ...
and is scared.
2.
Similar scenario, but now it's a group of collaborators, and Charlie of
them does not trust that everyone will be discreet enough to avoid
sharing a link to the document, with the changes still tracked, with
others.
On 25/07/2024 18:54, Heiko Tietze wrote:
On 25.07.24 1:34 PM, Eyal Rozenberg wrote:
* Some collaborators will want to avoid a record of their collaboration
to be kept as part of the document...
Sounds like a Schroedinger's argument. I just don't buy this use case.
The P2P workflow would be the same as of today but synchronously.
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems?
https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
