1. Christopher A

    Stop for a second and imagine if a contributor from a company other than Automattic submitted a pull request that sent opt-in tracking data to their own company’s servers. Think about how crazy that sounds.

    This leaves a really sour taste in my mouth.


    • Ibon

      “After updating the Gutenberg plugin to 0.7.0 and navigating to the editor, users are presented with the option to opt into data collection about their usage of the editor”

      They make you choose if you want or not, a lot of plugins do this and ask for the info to make the plugin better.


      • Christopher A

        The problem is not the opt-in tracking. The problem is the data is being transmitted and stored by Automattic, a for-profit company. To make matters worse, nowhere on the opt-in does it state this. It leaves you with the impression the data is being collected by WordPress.org.

        I clicked “Yes” on the tracking on Friday. It wasn’t until Sunday that it was disclosed via a blog post that the data was being sent to Automattic.

        I’m sure there was no malicious intent by adding the opt-in tracking. However, it is extremely tone-deaf given the current state of WP.


  2. Peter

    As Gutenberg is an open-source community project, we view this data as belonging to the WordPress community, …

    I would like to ask what is the size of that community? Also, does “view” mean you know?


  3. Grant Palin

    An interesting comment on the metabox discussion WRT Gutenberg:

    Does WordPress intend to formally deprecate Metabox API?


    Yet, there are multiple ways in which meta-boxes and extensibility could be handled:

    * If we detect a meta-box is registered we can fallback to the old interface, nothing changes.
    * We could split editing the content and modifying meta information into two screens or stages.
    * We can try to see how feasible it is to render these as they are (PHP) below the content: #2251.
    * A theme/plugin/CPT could unregister the new interface as needed.
    * Various items that relied on meta-boxes could be converted to blocks for UI (still storing data separately).
    * We could implement API based meta-boxes extensibility like the Fields API.

    Or any combination of these.

    I know a lot of people have been worried about continuing use of meta boxes in the editor view. It looks like there is no need for concern, as the team are trying to find the right way to integrate the meta boxes with the new flow that Gutenberg provides.


  4. David Aguilera

    Great post, Sarah! This is a very interesting and hot topic.

    I think that tracking usage data is the best way to improve Gutenberg. Actually, I think it’s the best way to improve any plugin or even WordPress itself, as I discussed in my talk at WCEU17 (WordPress Plugin and Theme Directories Don’t Love Developers). So, yes, I completely agree with Riad Benguella when he says “WP.org needs its own tracking infrastructure and this could be very useful to enhance WordPress”.

    However, WordPress users might feel differently. During my talk, I could see the audience had mixed feelings. Some people (especially those that run a business) were really interested in tracking anonymous usage data. Others (concerned users) were completely against this “Big Brother” behaviors. Either way, it’s a discussion we should have.

    My opinion? I think that any developer who really wants this data will find a way to get it (implementing its own tracking solution or using alternatives such as Vova Feldman’s Freemius), regardless of what “the community” decides. So, why don’t we create this tracking module within WordPress? It’d be open source and the data we’d collect could be completely open, anonymous, and so on.


  5. Morten Rand-Hendriksen

    The core telemetry ticket remains closed even though there is obviously a need for further discussion. Matt’s argument for closing it – that “it is not within the three focus areas” – is no longer valid as telemetry is being discussed in direct relation to the Editor focus (Gutenberg), yet it remains closed. In the ticket Matt says telemetry is a “terrible idea” without further details and ends with “I doubt that anything actionable or useful will come of it that couldn’t be obtained by non-data-collecting means.”



  6. Gary
    • Jeff Chandler

      I understand why it was removed. It was nice to see a glimpse into what’s possible if more time and energy was spent on the idea. Right now, the focus is to get the damn thing to a usable state, then energy can be spent on the surrounding issues. Makes sense to me.


    • Peter

      Matt says two words and all community effort is gone. Suddenly they changed their mind, obviously :) This “community” is amazing :)


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: