4 ms·

You can look as the engineers wonder if this does, but the executive team decided otherwise: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/issues/64341 https://gitl

• TeMPOraL 7y ago
  From the summary: > The primary responsibility of the new growth team is to run experiments Ah, the new growth team. I guess that explains it all. They hired "growth hackers" now. EDIT: interesting bits from the thread under that link: > Luca Williams (PM/Fulfillment): The general consensus I've heard through many conversations and discussions from an executive level is that opt-in is not preferable. Opt-out is the default. And that's precisely why GDPR happened. Because executives of companies think "opt-out is the default". > Dennis Tang (Frontend Engineering Manager): Correct, you could still call it an opt-in though, as in they're "opting-in" not to see the notice again... That's in context of calling a TOS change notification popup dismissal 'technically opt-in', but it's a pretty mind-mending way of interpreting what "opt-in" means. > https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/issues/64341#note_192086114 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/issues/64341#note_... That would suggest they already collect a lot of data, but keep it anonymous. The proposal in the link would essentially turn it into instant GDPR violation. -- I've mostly only skimmed the thread, but it seems to me that a lot of words were written about whether or not they should include a detailed opt-out feature, with apparently no one realizing that GDPR would require this to be opt-in.