On 07/20/2012 06:33 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
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.
Because it's quite often not done with malicious intent. External
installers, especially from things like anti-virus software, but often
enough from sites that for some reason make you download a .exe
installer rather than just installing the XPI directly, very often ask
users whether they want the add-on installed (though opt-out rather than
opt-in) and then bypass about:newaddon because they feel that
confirmation is enough. We disagree, which is why we give them the
opportunity to fix it before we simply block their add-ons. It also
doesn't help that quite a lot of users will be upset by having add-ons
disabled after they've asked that they be there.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
