Le 20/07/2012 12:33, Henri Sivonen a écrit :
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:27 AM, Jorge Villalobos <[email protected]> wrote:
* Add-ons must be installed either using the add-on install system or the
install opt-in dialog
[https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2011/08/11/strengthening-user-control-of-add-ons/].
...
Per blocklisting policy [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Blocklisting], Mozilla
will do their best to contact the developer and provide a reasonable time
frame for the problems to be corrected before a block is put in place. The
only exception to this are add-ons that are considered to be malicious or
whose developers have proven to be unreachable or unresponsive.
To me, it makes sense to give "a reasonable timeframe for the problems
to be corrected before a block is put in place" before blocking
extensions over accidental violations. Violations of the installation
guideline typically seem obviously intentional. I don't see why we
should give extension developers who violate the installation
guideline in a way that looks intentional the benefit of the doubt and
wait before blocklisting.
Not enabling to uninstall the extension, storing information in private
mode (I'm less sure for this one) or tampering with the application or
blocklist update systems. seems like things to be added to the list of
"intentional things that shouldn't require a delay before blocking".
For things that shows intentional harm, there shouldn't be a need for a
delay (to do a softblock), I agree.
David
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
