Positive, neutral, and negative positions #680

martinthomson · 2022-08-29T00:41:33Z

A revision of the position taxonomy to use positive, neutral, and negative.

Closes #242.

For the curious, jq does a decent job here. ```bash jq '.[].mozPosition |= if . == "important" then "positive" else if . == "worth prototyping" then "positive" else if . == "non-harmful" then "neutral" else if . == "harmful" then "negative" else . end end end end' activities.json ```

ekr · 2022-08-29T01:06:04Z

What's your proposed plan for dealing with our previous positions? I feel like we either need to go back and re-label or you need some reference for the old labels.

martinthomson · 2022-08-29T01:16:37Z

This retroactively applies the new labels to old positions. In reviewing those, I didn't find any that needed changes to make sense.

After merginf this, we will need to rename labels, which isn't perfect with respect to how some of GitHub's systems manage that. But aside from those few corner cases, I don't anticipate any problems with doing that.

ekr · 2022-08-29T03:26:06Z

So just to confirm, the plan is actually to relabel the old issues? I don't have a problem with that, I just want to make sure we don't have things still publicly saying (for instance) non-harmful but no definition for that.

README.md

bgrins · 2022-08-29T17:13:13Z

So just to confirm, the plan is actually to relabel the old issues?

Yes, confirming that's my understanding of the plan. And the PR doing that with the web UI - it barely touches index.html but the actual content is client side rendered from activities.json which has been rewritten to the new positions. As for issues which are directly labeled in github and not part of the web UI, those would be updated automatically after renaming as per #680 (comment).

bgrins · 2022-08-29T18:03:43Z

README.md

+and the design fundamentals of each specification.  Incomplete documentation, minor issues, or lack
+interoperability testing are not reasons for a negative position, provided that intent is clear.
+
+We might also use the following labels for specifications where we do not have enough information or


I like splitting these out into a group separate from the others. But the old definition for defer includes a lot of discretion for the reason to not set a position - it's just "does not intend to" (and even stronger with "at all"). This new group header text narrows this quite a bit by basing it on missing information. I can think of cases where any information we'd need to form a position is accessible to us, but we choose not to invest the time to do it. In some sense the text here is still accurate - we don't have enough information, but that's because we aren't seeking it. And I think defined this way it may be construed as a desire for people looking for our position to just send over more information if something is deferred.

WDYT? If we want to keep closer semantics to what we have today we could prefix the group with something simpler like "We may use the following labels for specifications where we haven't formed a position".

Yeah, I think that is easier. I wanted to give more context, but it turns out that trying to enumerate the list failed to be complete. Sometimes we just don't want to, but putting that into the README doesn't sound good.

bgrins · 2022-08-29T18:06:32Z

activities.json

@@ -317,7 +317,7 @@
  },
  {
    "ciuName": null,
-    "description": "This proposal adds an API for prompting and querying the user\u2019s contacts for one or more items with a handful of contact properties.",
+    "description": "This proposal adds an API for prompting and querying the user’s contacts for one or more items with a handful of contact properties.",


IIRC this unfortunately breaks the activities.py tool (as per #652)

bgrins · 2022-08-29T18:06:44Z

activities.json

@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@
  },
  {
    "ciuName": "credential-management",
-    "description": "This specification describes an imperative API enabling a website to request a user\u2019s credentials from a user agent, and to help the user agent correctly store user credentials for future use.",
+    "description": "This specification describes an imperative API enabling a website to request a user’s credentials from a user agent, and to help the user agent correctly store user credentials for future use.",


bgrins · 2022-08-29T18:07:41Z

activities.json

@@ -733,10 +733,10 @@
  },
  {
    "ciuName": "mdn-api_keyboardlayoutmap",
-    "description": "This specification defines an API that allows websites to convert from a given code value to a valid key value that can be shown to the user to identify the given key. The conversion from code to key is based on the user\u2019s currently selected keyboard layout. It is intended to be used by web applications that want to treat the keyboard as a set of buttons and need to describe those buttons to the user.",
+    "description": "This specification defines an API that allows websites to convert from a given code value to a valid key value that can be shown to the user to identify the given key. The conversion from code to key is based on the user’s currently selected keyboard layout. It is intended to be used by web applications that want to treat the keyboard as a set of buttons and need to describe those buttons to the user.",


bgrins · 2022-08-29T18:08:53Z

activities.json

@@ -1018,11 +1018,11 @@
  },
  {
    "ciuName": null,
-    "description": "This document specifies modifications to Fetch which are intended to mitigate the risks associated with unintentional exposure of devices and servers on a client\u2019s internal network to the web at large.",
+    "description": "This document specifies modifications to Fetch which are intended to mitigate the risks associated with unintentional exposure of devices and servers on a client’s internal network to the web at large.",


Ditto - last one :)

Thanks for catching these. ./activities.py sort fixed them all up.

bgrins

LGTM

tantek

Looks good to me with the updated edits.

* Update position taxonomy For the curious, jq does a decent job here. ```bash jq '.[].mozPosition |= if . == "important" then "positive" else if . == "worth prototyping" then "positive" else if . == "non-harmful" then "neutral" else if . == "harmful" then "negative" else . end end end end' activities.json ``` * Fix positions in index.html * Provide more context on positions in README * Fix misimpression * of * Revert \u2019 * We sometimes don't form a view

martinthomson added 4 commits August 29, 2022 10:41

Fix positions in index.html

f9a308d

Provide more context on positions in README

7b8cad6

Fix misimpression

0c5d048

martinthomson requested review from tantek and bgrins August 29, 2022 00:41

bgrins reviewed Aug 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

bgrins reviewed Aug 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

martinthomson added 3 commits August 30, 2022 08:06

of

1c47d61

Revert \u2019

6a860fa

We sometimes don't form a view

d079dfe

bgrins approved these changes Aug 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

tantek approved these changes Aug 30, 2022

View reviewed changes

martinthomson merged commit 33bdc22 into mozilla:main Aug 30, 2022

martinthomson deleted the positive-neutral-negative branch August 30, 2022 22:11

zcorpan mentioned this pull request Dec 19, 2022

<search> element #610

Closed

jyasskin mentioned this pull request Apr 11, 2023

Align Mozilla signal options with actual Mozilla signals GoogleChrome/chromium-dashboard#2909

Closed

zcorpan mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2024

Payment Handler API #23

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Positive, neutral, and negative positions #680

Positive, neutral, and negative positions #680

martinthomson commented Aug 29, 2022

ekr commented Aug 29, 2022

martinthomson commented Aug 29, 2022

ekr commented Aug 29, 2022

bgrins commented Aug 29, 2022

bgrins Aug 29, 2022

martinthomson Aug 29, 2022

bgrins Aug 29, 2022

bgrins Aug 29, 2022

bgrins Aug 29, 2022

bgrins Aug 29, 2022

martinthomson Aug 29, 2022

bgrins left a comment

tantek left a comment

Positive, neutral, and negative positions #680

Positive, neutral, and negative positions #680

Conversation

martinthomson commented Aug 29, 2022

ekr commented Aug 29, 2022

martinthomson commented Aug 29, 2022

ekr commented Aug 29, 2022

bgrins commented Aug 29, 2022

bgrins Aug 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

martinthomson Aug 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bgrins Aug 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bgrins Aug 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bgrins Aug 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bgrins Aug 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

martinthomson Aug 29, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bgrins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tantek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment