From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 23 08:51:12 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43952601; Thu, 23 May 2013 08:51:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dt71@gmx.com) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F3FDD3; Thu, 23 May 2013 08:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.80] ([84.2.253.116]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MVIva-1UydIe3T0Y-00YfrJ; Thu, 23 May 2013 10:51:11 +0200 Message-ID: <519DD877.7000808@gmx.com> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 10:51:03 +0200 From: dt71@gmx.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: "injunction" on the use of GA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:99c8joK/TsCOtEiHhDWr2bbvQLpkUM7s7sqBEzHKU3zZnPaNNkU h4ZG08GWJVwSwRs5yRQa1ItWfZCDRbfAHNKLourlItaGhSxvqX1Jj77MMSt6cihj9Ywhcse T4Lh/s+vCkP1zSsG9sPm0co38+CLA3uV0H0EEsQ8o6xkNnvQr3mmdoe0H5Bi6LuxXKP8+zM YR/P2E5trvCob4QCEqMGw== Cc: gjb@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 08:51:12 -0000 Several months ago, the FreeBSD web master decided to cover the main FreeBSD web site with Google Analytics, without giving any response or respect to critics and concerns raised by the user community, such as questioned benefits, public moral issues and noted alternatives. Now, I call for an "injunction" for the FreeBSD web master to explain, thoroughly: What has so far been gained through the use of GA? Of these, which ones could not have been achieved otherwise, such as with a different tool? Also of these, which ones are significant, and why? What warrants the continued application of GA? I hope to see a compelling argument that justifies the web master's silent negligence several months ago, or admittance and relevant acts otherwise.