Well, one day later it’s clear there’s a strong feeling around the safe: topic, stronger than I’d anticipated, heh.
I appreciate the suggestion of change of direction was a bit of a shock, so apologies for that. I’ll choose my wording more carefully in future, and offer more explanations up front before making changes a main proposal. That is noted.
I’m not sure there’s a need to rerun any poll. I feel like the main points around it have been made for both points, and a cursory read of this topic, the discussion thread, and (unofficial) poll threads makes things pretty clear.
The good thing is, that over and above the safe: vs .safenet question, some other questions about what people want/need/expect from a browser came up (possibilities of it with launcher integration… how far to go with any integration… browser/launcher bundles…what is a launcher, for example), which will be helpful down the line.
So, I’m intending to update this proposal again, to produce a safe: protocol browser (as it was originally).
The remaining changes (removal of anonymous launcher access stretch) will stand for now. If there’s demand it could be reinstated, as a further stretch goal. But I feel it’s not something for a ‘basic’ browser in the first instance (which is something that came up a lot in the threads).
Instead I’ll focus specifically on the browser first and foremost (which I think is a higher priority), with the ‘browser data’ stretch looking to ensure all user data is stored on the network, while still allowing standard browser behaviours like ‘history’ and ‘favourites’ to function, SAFEly.
Thanks for all the input! It really was helpful 