While we're resurrecting this thread: It was mentioned a few times that your team has a plan for doing QA of existing add-ons, and that we'd hear about this plan soon. What is the status of this plan?
It's hard to overstate how important it is for us to test the software our users actually run. On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Michael Verdi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, July 19, 2012 6:27:13 PM UTC-5, Jorge Villalobos wrote: >> I >> >> also haven't yet posted the ideas that we have to improve our reaction >> >> to add-on problems. That will have to wait a week or two, but it's coming! > > Have these been posted yet? The Support team in particular is interested in > hearing about these. Bad add-on behavior is historically our largest support > issue. Larger than crashes and only recently eclipsed by Flash 11.3 troubles. > Improving the situation is one of our top priorities. > > >> Mozilla expects all add-ons, and their updates, hosted on AMO or >> >> elsewhere, to follow these guidelines. These guidelines are not >> >> exhaustive and don't necessarily apply to all add-ons (see Exceptions). >> > > Yes! This is great. I think it's crucial that these also apply to add-ons not > hosted on AMO. I have a few more suggestions below that I think are important > to doing right by our users. > > >> * Add-ons must remove all introduced code, executables, and application >> >> configuration changes once they are uninstalled. > > I agree 100%. I also have some questions and concerns about things I've seen. > The more I look into this, the more I see that Firefox preferences seem to be > changed by a software installer that also installs an add-on. So, even if you > get to opt-out of the add-on install, the preference change (home page and/or > search) still happens and no method of reverting these changes is provided. > What can we do about this? Does the "add-ons" term cover the software used to > install them? > >> >> * Add-ons should not disrespect the user's choices by making unexpected >> >> changes or limiting the user's ability to revert them. > > I think this should be a "must not" rather than a "should not." This is the > thing that sends 1.3 million people a month to SUMO looking for a solution. > Many more people just live with the changes, not having the time or skill to > seek out help. These are the practices that add-on makers use to ensnare > users. These practices take away user sovereignty and they damage our brand. > > The main practice that causes "unexpected changes" is the opt-out checkbox. > Presenting add-on installs and preference changes as opt-out does not count > as a user's intent. Millions of people have said this to us. > > > >> * Exceptions * >> >> * Add-ons can only run clean up code if they are uninstalled while >> >> Firefox is running and they are enabled. This is the only case where it >> >> is a requirement for add-ons to clean up after themselves. >> > > Does this mean that if an add-on is removed by using it's program's > associated uninstaller, it won't have to/can't revert Firefox preferences > that it changed? If so is there anything that could be done to make this > easier for users? > > >> >> * Enforcement * >> >> >> >> If an add-on breaks any of the /must/ guidelines, or one or more the >> >> /should/ guidelines to a significant extent, it qualifies for blocklisting. >> >> >> >> 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. > > I agree with others in this thread that intentional violations should blocked > right away. Specifically, I think this includes add-ons that try to > circumvent, tamper or alter our install dialogs. I think we should call that > out as a "must not" rule. > > > There is one more thing I'd like to suggest here. I think we should take a > leadership position on behalf of all internet users and say that add-ons > "should not" be bundled on an opt-out basis. That practice is such a problem > - not only for us but other browser makers too. To me it feels like the kind > of thing that an organization that promises "We answer to no one buy you" > would do. Of course simply stating that doesn't mean software makers will > just change their behavior but we have a good history of being able to > promote ideas that are good for the web and getting people and companies to > get on board. > > >> The previous discussion was so long (and successful!) that I am creating >> >> a separate thread for this new draft, for the benefit of all. > > I was expecting a followup in the other thread so I only just discovered this > one today. :( > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
