Edit from 2022: Consider checking the Forum user manual if you're not sure if something you're looking for might already be possible.
Hello, Forum!
This is Aaron and JP of the EA Forum team.
We spend a lot of time working on the Forum, and we’d like to hear your ideas for making it better. These can be new features or other kinds of requests.
Even if you don’t have suggestions of your own, consider upvoting ideas you like from the comments. That will have nonzero influence on the features we prioritize (though we also take many other factors into account).
If you’d rather make a suggestion privately, get in touch with us through this page.
Edit April 2022: This thread is still very live as you can see by the continual influx of suggestions. We have now synced our asana project with our public Github issues list, so you can see our recorded tasks there.[1] I'd still recommend suggesting features here so that other users can see and discuss them. — JP
- ^
Note: there's a delay between when we write tasks down and when they get triaged into a state that gets synced with Github.
TLDR; Unfortunately, I think I am asking for a somewhat clearer statement from a senior source that CEA won't take such action. To be clear, this might be a clear, good faith statement from someone like Max Dalton or Habryka, that they will do best efforts not to restrict or adjust the open vision of API use, as a result of this leak. Because the EA forum technical development is closely intertwined with LW, this statement should include consent of the LW team, such as Habryka.
I believe the leak is substantial (it's not an emergency but there is some chance it's embarrassing).
Because of the moderate severity of the leak, I think something like the following scenario could occur:
Two weeks after being notified of the leak, JP, Ben West, Max Dalton and the CEA board have a routine, private meeting about CEA's online programs, like most organizations do.
In this routine meeting meeting, one of the conclusions was the suspension of further development of EA forum features in favor of another technical project. The leak had a large influence on this decision.
Three months after the private meeting, a message was posted "We're restricting use of [specific forum/API] use because of limited developer attention. Unfortunately, we decided to turn it off because of the maintenance demands".
While no connection with the leak is stated and other factors, including actually limited developer time played a role, the truth was that leaks/headaches was the causal reason the feature stopped being developed.
Note that the above does not require bad faith on the part of CEA. I actually don't think anyone wants the above to happen. The above scenario is just the logical, rational way of doing things if you're heading an entity that has a lot of projects and limited developer time.
Like, this is a confession, this is what I would do.
Another way of seeing this is that the forces are just the normal forces of being a public entity.
By this request, I'm trying to proportionately "tie" your hands (to the degree that a public good faith statement would) so that these forces can't act to deteriorate access.