On 15/03/2012 10:23, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I've noticed that @firefox on Twitter has promoted at least one add-on
> that you list as having leaks (Lastpass). Maybe we should have some
> rule of not promoting foreign-installed add-ons or add-ons with known
> problems or add-ons that replace features (like password manager or
> safe browsing) that Firefox already has built-in.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Michael Lefevre
<m...@michaellefevre.com> wrote:
> On 15/03/2012 10:23, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> I've noticed that @firefox on Twitter has promoted at least one add-on
>> that you list as having leaks (Lastpass). Maybe we should have some
>> rule of not promoting foreign-installed add-ons or add-ons with known
>> problems or add-ons that replace features (like password manager or
>> safe browsing) that Firefox already has built-in.
>
> I know you've used "or", but that starts to look like a way of never
> promoting any add-ons at all.

> Lastpass might be foreign-installed as well, but it is also on AMO, fully
> reviewed and listed as a "featured" addon. Actually I can immediately see
> several add-ons on the AMO featured list which are also on the "leaking"
> list, and which replace built-in functions.

>> Lastpass might be foreign-installed as well, but it is also on AMO, fully
>> reviewed and listed as a "featured" addon. Actually I can immediately see
>> several add-ons on the AMO featured list which are also on the "leaking"
>> list, and which replace built-in functions.
>
> I think leaky add-ons shouldn't be on the features list, either.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsiv...@iki.fi> wrote:

> I've noticed that @firefox on Twitter has promoted at least one add-on
> that you list as having leaks (Lastpass). Maybe we should have some
> rule of not promoting foreign-installed add-ons or add-ons with known
> problems or add-ons that replace features (like password manager or
> safe browsing) that Firefox already has built-in.

On 3/15/12 4:23 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I've noticed that @firefox on Twitter has promoted at least one add-on
> that you list as having leaks (Lastpass).

> Maybe we should have some
> rule of not promoting foreign-installed add-ons

> or add-ons with known problems

> or add-ons that replace features (like password manager or
> safe browsing) that Firefox already has built-in.

On 3/15/12 4:23 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> I've noticed that @firefox on Twitter has promoted at least one add-on
> that you list as having leaks (Lastpass).

The memory leak hunt is only getting started, so we're still in a
discovery phase where many add-on leaks will be discovered. We're only
beginning to inform developers how to look for leaks and fix them. While
some are the result of bad coding practices, others can be caused by
minor oversights (like an undeclared variable).

I expect many popular add-ons to have leaks, since they usually have the
most complex code, and given that developers haven't been actively
looking for them since they don't know how to.

> Maybe we should have some
> rule of not promoting foreign-installed add-ons

We only promote AMO add-ons as far as I know.

> or add-ons with known problems

Depending on the severity of the problem, we already have this policy.
We don't promote add-ons that are not fully reviewed, and we work with
the Featured Add-ons group to make sure new add-ons being featured
aren't problematic.

> or add-ons that replace features (like password manager or
> safe browsing) that Firefox already has built-in.

On 03/14/12 16:36, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> - provide listings for non-AMO add-ons on AMO

On 15/03/2012 14:55, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Kyle Huey<m...@kylehuey.com>  wrote:

>> What's wrong with addons replacing built-in features, if the replacement is
>> at the same level of quality (in terms of leaks/perf/etc)?
>
> It sets users up to grief like what was seen when Google Toolbar went
> away and people had their bookmarks there. Having passwords in a
> 3rd-party password manager is a setup for a situation where user
> workflow will be badly disrupted if the extension stops working.
> Outright *promoting* such extensions sets us up for having problems
> with "too disruptive to fail" add-ons.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jorge Villalobos <jo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe we should have some
>> rule of not promoting foreign-installed add-ons
>
> We only promote AMO add-ons as far as I know.
>
>> or add-ons with known problems
>
> Depending on the severity of the problem, we already have this policy. We
> don't promote add-ons that are not fully reviewed, and we work with the
> Featured Add-ons group to make sure new add-ons being featured aren't
> problematic.
>
>> or add-ons that replace features (like password manager or
>> safe browsing) that Firefox already has built-in.
>
> I disagree with this completely.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Justin Lebar <justi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> a) Say on the AMO page that the add-on is known to leak -- the
> preliminary review warning is not particularly informative [1]

On 3/15/12 4:52 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:

On 3/15/12 5:07 PM, Jorge Villalobos wrote:
> * You'll see a second warning when you click on the Add to Firefox button.

On 3/15/12 5:07 PM, Jorge Villalobos wrote:

> * You'll see a second warning when you click on the Add to Firefox button.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Jorge Villalobos <jo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> - provide listings for non-AMO add-ons on AMO
>>
>> We used to do this, I don't recall why we stopped.
>
> http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2010/10/06/discontinuing-several-features-of-amo/

On 3/14/2012 4:36 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
 > The three problem areas are

 > "Add-ons can hurt performance"

 > "Non-AMO add-ons have no minimal quality standard"

 > "Foreign-installed add-ons can be unwanted"

 > Some of the listed ideas are already in place.  Of those that are
not, I think the following are both worth doing and likely to be
uncontroversial:

 > - offer reviews/QA for non-AMO add-ons

 > - provide listings for non-AMO add-ons on AMO

On 03/15/2012 06:23 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> add-ons that replace features (like password manager or
> safe browsing) that Firefox already has built-in.

>  > - provide listings for non-AMO add-ons on AMO
>
> This seems like an absolute necessity for providing users with real choice.
> Listings, review states, and ratings are all necessary. It's the only way we can
> properly warn them about shortcomings with add-ons. We should surface this
> information during foreign-install "are you sure" prompts and we should make
> sure it's easily accessible for add-ons installed from non-AMO websites. For
> users who already have add-ons installed, we should offer a one-time prompt on a
> future update that helps them understand the implications of their current
> add-ons. We should also update the add-on manager to grab relevant data from the
> listings and display it along side the add-on in the add-ons manager.
>
> - A

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Asa Dotzler <a...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>>
>> - provide listings for non-AMO add-ons on AMO
>
> This seems like an absolute necessity for providing users with real choice.
> Listings, review states, and ratings are all necessary. It's the only way we
> can properly warn them about shortcomings with add-ons. We should surface
> this information during foreign-install "are you sure" prompts and we should
> make sure it's easily accessible for add-ons installed from non-AMO
> websites. For users who already have add-ons installed, we should offer a
> one-time prompt on a future update that helps them understand the
> implications of their current add-ons. We should also update the add-on
> manager to grab relevant data from the listings and display it along side
> the add-on in the add-ons manager.

> On 3/14/2012 4:36 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>  > - provide listings for non-AMO add-ons on AMO
>
> This seems like an absolute necessity for providing users with real
> choice. Listings, review states, and ratings are all necessary. It's the
> only way we can properly warn them about shortcomings with add-ons. We
> should surface this information during foreign-install "are you sure"
> prompts and we should make sure it's easily accessible for add-ons
> installed from non-AMO websites. For users who already have add-ons
> installed, we should offer a one-time prompt on a future update that
> helps them understand the implications of their current add-ons. We
> should also update the add-on manager to grab relevant data from the
> listings and display it along side the add-on in the add-ons manager.

On 18/03/2012 9:20 p.m., Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> Jorge cited http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2010/10/06/discontinuing-several-features-of-amo/,
> which explains how AMO used to do this.  The problem is that it
> perverts the incentives -- add-on authors can get the benefits of
> being on AMO (visibility) without the costs (having to pass review).
> This makes it less likely that authors will distribute their add-ons
> through AMO, which is bad.
>
> Maybe the model could be tweaked to avoid this problem -- e.g. allow
> reviews and a description of an add-on without providing a download
> link?  But that sounds a bit odd.  The link also explains that it made
> AMO significantly more complex.

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Blair McBride <bmcb...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> That model doesn't fit with the problem at hand anyway, since it primarily
> solves discoverability.
>
> Add-ons don't need to be *listed* on AMO for us to get the benefits
> (reviews, rating, etc). Nor do they need to be submitted. The problem here
> isn't discoverability/visibility of non-hosted add-ons.
>
> All we need is storage of reviews/ratings/etc, and an API. And consumption
> of that data is contextual:
> * When you're about to install such an addon
> * When you already have such an add-on installed
>
> And that's *any* non-hosted addon, not just those that were added to AMO's
> database by the addon author.
>
> When we install/detect an addon, we already ask AMO for additional metadata
> - we can make that include reviews/ratings/etc for non-hosted addons. That
> ping also gives us a list of non-hosted add-ons to review/test/etc (which
> has already started).

On 3/20/12 5:30 AM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Dave Townsend <dtow...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's all true, but if an add-on isn't listed on AMO how/where do
>>> users submit reviews and ratings?
>>

>> In the Add-ons Manager?
>
> The UI can go there sure, we need a service on the web somewhere to
> aggregate that data though. AMO already has this functionality.

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
<n.net...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Regardless of whether the info is presented on AMO or in the add-ons
> manager, I imagine users will want to be able to see their reviews and
> ratings somewhere public and obvious -- it's not much fun to submit
> reviews/ratings somewhere if those reviews/ratings are only shown to
> people who install an add-on.  (But I could be wrong about this...)