3 ms·
What's left me confused is one thing: if the significance of "default public" was missed, then what was the motivation for the previous warning email? It seems
by mehrdadn 6y ago
What's left me confused is one thing: if the significance of "default public" was missed, then what was the motivation for the previous warning email? It seems bizarre to suddenly email everyone "Hey folks, we're changing your default privacy settings next week" while simultaneously believing that it's... an insignificant thing?
- syshum 6y agoMy Guess, someone on the team understood the ramifications but others did not. They only thing they someone could get them to agree to is the email I have been in meetings where everyone in the meeting though "doing X will have no impact on anyone so there is not need to notify", where I knew 100% they were wrong but none of my arguments landed, my final statement was "well if it is not significant then the email should not matter either so why not just send it out just in case." These things do not happen in the vacuum, and while it is good the CEO is talking 100% of the blame, I can assure you the CEO had internal support and internal dissent for the feature.
- mehrdadn 6y agoMakes sense I guess, thanks. Going a little off-topic, but regarding what you mentioned -- how do you reply when they (inevitably, I often feel) reply to your 'why not' with "Well because we shouldn't send out needless emails to people"?