Let me start by pointing out that that was one out of 21 points I made. If there is disagreement about this being a requirement - ok. Anyway, my reason for suggesting that as a requirement was twofold: * The parallelism with tracking vs non-tracking of changes in single-user editing sessions (i.e. how LO works right now). * The sense that if we don't satisfy users of there being decent identity-scrubbing for collaborative editing, this will deter some people in some circumstances of utilizing this feature; for which reason it should be more than an afterthought and a consideration from the get-go. Remember that one of the benefits this approach will offer over centralized, third-party-server-based collaboration is exactly that of better privacy or anonymity. Michael Hawkins provided some additional scenarios from more corporate settings. Mine are more "personal", and are actually based in real life situations of people I know. Naturally, they were not doing collaborative on-line editing, but there was collaboration whose participants wanted to keep discreet. Eyal On 26/07/2024 14:20, Felix Queisler wrote:
@Eyal: Is the scenario based in something other than fantasy? Right now it seems more like feature creep to me. If it can be validated, then it seems to me there could simply be an export flag to create a sanitized document. Like you can export photos in some software excluding metadata for privacy reasons. Best, Felix Am 25. Juli 2024, 18:11 +0200 schrieb Eyal Rozenberg <eyalroz1@gmx.com>:1. Suppose Alice is working on a formal letter which she intends to send to scary company Bob Corporation. Charlie is helping Alice draft her letter, but Charlie has his own history with BobCo, and so does not want his name to be mentioned on the document in any way. Now, Alice can tell Bob: "Don't worry, I'll finalize the letter before sending it so that your name won't appear on it." but Charlie, who is not a techy person and is not experienced with "track changes" and such, is not easy with having to rely on her promise that "it will be ok". He sees his name all over the text: "Charlie wrote:", "Charlie says:" ... and is scared. 2. Similar scenario, but now it's a group of collaborators, and Charlie of them does not trust that everyone will be discreet enough to avoid sharing a link to the document, with the changes still tracked, with others. On 25/07/2024 18:54, Heiko Tietze wrote:On 25.07.24 1:34 PM, Eyal Rozenberg wrote:* Some collaborators will want to avoid a record of their collaboration to be kept as part of the document...Sounds like a Schroedinger's argument. I just don't buy this use case. The P2P workflow would be the same as of today but synchronously.-- To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
-- To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy