Hi everyone,
In order to improve we need to know how you guys use Foreman, we've
prepared a survey [1] and would appreciate if you take the time to fill it
in.
On behalf of the foreman team,
Ohad
That sounds perfectly fine to me, perhaps for the less attentive people(i.e
who don't read about it or notice it) make it opt-in like Debians package
survey?
And I filled in the survey. 
Regards
Johan
···
On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 11:04:25 AM UTC+1, Daniel Lobato wrote: > > In addition to this, I was wondering if the community would mind a > feature where: > Foreman would collect anonymized analytics (can be disabled) and > exceptions > This data would be sent to a centralized server so that developers > can get a better idea of what are our current users needs. > > Anyone strongly opposed to this? It'd likely help us make surveys like > this shorter and ask more specific questions :) > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Ohad Levy > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > In order to improve we need to know how you guys use Foreman, we've > prepared > > a survey [1] and would appreciate if you take the time to fill it in. > > > > On behalf of the foreman team, > > Ohad > > > > > > [1] http://goo.gl/forms/ypYiCHG7Qu > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "foreman-dev" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > > email to foreman-dev...@googlegroups.com . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > Daniel Lobato > > @elobatoss > blog.daniellobato.me > daniellobato.me > > GPG: http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A92D6DD38D6DE30 >In addition to this, I was wondering if the community would mind a
feature where:
Foreman would collect anonymized analytics (can be disabled) and exceptions
This data would be sent to a centralized server so that developers
can get a better idea of what are our current users needs.
Anyone strongly opposed to this? It'd likely help us make surveys like
this shorter and ask more specific questions
···
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Ohad Levy wrote: > Hi everyone, > > In order to improve we need to know how you guys use Foreman, we've prepared > a survey [1] and would appreciate if you take the time to fill it in. > > On behalf of the foreman team, > Ohad > > > [1] http://goo.gl/forms/ypYiCHG7Qu > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.–
Daniel Lobato
@elobatoss
blog.daniellobato.me
daniellobato.me
GPG: http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A92D6DD38D6DE30
Given the nature of Foreman and the sensetivety of most data, I'd make
it opt-in instead of opt-out. I understand that this will mean that
fewer users will enable it, but the trust makes up for it IMHO.
···
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:04:03AM +0100, Daniel Lobato wrote: > In addition to this, I was wondering if the community would mind a > feature where: > Foreman would collect anonymized analytics (can be disabled) and exceptions > This data would be sent to a centralized server so that developers > can get a better idea of what are our current users needs. > > Anyone strongly opposed to this? It'd likely help us make surveys like > this shorter and ask more specific questions :)Apparently I can't leave "Do you use the Foreman API or Hammer?" with no
ticks - I'm not aware of using any of them, but to submit the survey I've
ticked APIv1, so you can subtract one from that column!
Thanks.
···
On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 09:39:35 UTC, ohad wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > In order to improve we need to know how you guys use Foreman, we've > prepared a survey [1] and would appreciate if you take the time to fill it > in. > > On behalf of the foreman team, > Ohad > > > [1] http://goo.gl/forms/ypYiCHG7Qu >> Given the nature of Foreman and the sensetivety of most data, I'd make
> it opt-in instead of opt-out. I understand that this will mean that
> fewer users will enable it, but the trust makes up for it IMHO.
This should be definitely opt-in, when the first user signs-in the UI
the very first time I think (a dialog asking for this).
···
-- Later, Lukas #lzap Zapletal> Apparently I can't leave "Do you use the Foreman API or Hammer?" with no
> ticks - I'm not aware of using any of them, but to submit the survey I've
> ticked APIv1, so you can subtract one from that column!
>
> Thanks! I've updated the survey to allow that option.
Ohad
···
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Iain Hallam wrote:Thanks.
On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 09:39:35 UTC, ohad wrote:
Hi everyone,
In order to improve we need to know how you guys use Foreman, we’ve
prepared a survey [1] and would appreciate if you take the time to fill it
in.On behalf of the foreman team,
Ohad–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Foreman users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to foreman-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to foreman-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foreman-users.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
And secure systems should have outgoing traffic to unknown
destinations blocked by policy.
So that's advise for the paranoid's 
Maybe to get some additional users trusting it and enabling it, would be
a way that the Security/Super User role can see and approve the data
being sent.
And a clear data collection policy where you clearly state what you
collect helps for trust. For example can't have customer names leaking
through exceptions automatically being uploaded to a third party.
Last question, how are the "anonymized analytics" anonymized exactly?
Filling in the survey now!
Met vriendelijke groet, With kind regards,
Jorick Astrego
Netbulae Virtualization Experts
···
On 01/27/2015 12:19 PM, Lukas Zapletal wrote: >> Given the nature of Foreman and the sensetivety of most data, I'd make >> it opt-in instead of opt-out. I understand that this will mean that >> fewer users will enable it, but the trust makes up for it IMHO. > This should be definitely opt-in, when the first user signs-in the UI > the very first time I think (a dialog asking for this). > ----------------Tel: 053 20 30 270 info@netbulae.eu Staalsteden 4-3A KvK 08198180
Fax: 053 20 30 271 www.netbulae.eu 7547 TA Enschede BTW NL821234584B01
Whilst I'll no doubt scrutinise the PR very closely, I'm also interested in
how this intends to be done. It's been shown that de-anonymising data is
extremely easy to do (see [1] for just one clever example), so it'll be
interesting.
Oh, and +1 for opt-in. Privacy should never be compromised by default.
Greg
···
On 27 January 2015 at 13:32, Jorick Astrego wrote:Last question, how are the “anonymized analytics” anonymized exactly?
> > This should be definitely opt-in, when the first user signs-in the UI
> > the very first time I think (a dialog asking for this).
That is very true, but the UI would send it via JavaScript (when
opt-in). We should definitely not send the request from Foreman
Application itself.