Reinstate link to NiM in debug documentation.

[june07]

As no response has been received to #1908 since nearly a week, I am opening this issue.

@fhemberger Would be great to get some feedback on this.

For the record, I've compared NiM's Chrome web store page with that of 10 different companies, all of whom have items in Google's Chrome web store, FOUR (EBay, Paypal, Walmart, and LinkedIn, of whom are among "10 Global Companies Using Node.js in Production" according to Google. And none of which I would think the Node.js community would have a problem "recommend"ing if that is what it means to add a link on the https://nodejs.org/en/docs/guides/debugging-getting-started/ page.

I have compiled current pictures of all 10 companies’ chrome web store pages, as well as the privacy policy pages for each of the 5 which actually have them referenced, and uploaded them to Google photos (see link below). As far as the other 5, there are a number of valid reasons why they may not have privacy policy links, just as NiM did not, but I don’t want to digress.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/y4TN5dT1JeNbED2KA

I can say with strong conviction that data collected by NiM is minuscule by every measure when compared to that collected by these larger companies. Further, no data has ever been used for ill purposes and will not ever deviate from that found in our new privacy policy (link again: https://app.termly.io/document/privacy-policy/04164179-f943-4e87-ac8b-5afd0367dc6c#infocollect) And again, @ea167’s statement that “this requirement was added recently.” is simply NOT the case as can be determined by reading the GitHub project history.
THIS is where/when the extra permissions were added on Feb 9, 2017, close to 2 years ago. As the removal was partly predicated on that statement, I bring it up again.

I do regret not having a privacy policy in place sooner. To my defense, unlike these larger organizations, I don’t really have spare man/woman power to go around. That said, the focus for me has been on trying to make NiM great for the betterment of like-minded Node.js developers. I should point out that I make zero monetary gain from NiM, and it is a side project for me.

So, if they weren’t before, I believe that all of the bases are now covered. I would like to get the Chrome web store link for NiM back and would be more than happy to submit a PR for such.

Please advise...

-Respectfully to all

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nodejs-v8-inspector-manag/gnhhdgbaldcilmgcpfddgdbkhjohddkj

[MylesBorins]

/cc @nodejs/tsc

[MylesBorins]

As this has to do with potential legal stuff it may need to be surfaced to the foundation for guidance... but lets see if we can reach consensus within the TSC first

[june07]

Thank you again, Myles, for nudging this.

[mcollina]

I'm fine in having that link in.

[june07]

Not sure my messages were going thru on https://www.youtube.com/c/nodejs+foundation/live. I will submit a PR for the change.

[ChALkeR]

I would prefer not recommending any browser extensions, for security reasons.

[gabrielschulhof]

Perhaps we should keep it generic and mention that the Chrome Web store provides additional tools that help with debugging. We can even add a link with a keyword search that would bring up NiM, but would also bring up other extensions that satisfy the keywords. Nevertheless, if NiM were the first of many such helpers and would be closely associated with the keywords it would, at least for the beginning, be the first search result. We can then maybe tune the keywords to keep a sufficient distance between making a specific recommendation while allowing other tools to show up as they are being developed, and being too generic.

[ChALkeR]

@gabrielschulhof that seems ok to me, but imo we shouldn't actively promote the usage of browser extensions for this task. A note that those exist (without explicitly calling people to install those, and without linking to any specific one) would be fine enough in my opinion.

[june07]

I sort of get the hand waving and wide eyes about "browser extensions" and "security reasons" by some but in all fairness, as developers, I think we are held to a slightly higher level of sophistication as it relates to understanding how to stay safe. Using that same safety paradigm, should we pull all references to any Inspector Clients from the debugging-getting-started page?! After all, we are all aware of the NPM "security" issues of late, and I am safe to say that a full-on executable has much more ability to wreak havoc on a system vs a Javascript sandboxed web application. NiM wasn't even listed as a primary option but rather a sub-option to Chrome DevTools, a very suitable place for it. Of course, we shouldn't remove listings to other Inspector Clients. If anything, more should be added if they are deemed as helpful as NiM has proven to be (see the rating/feedback). Many have asked or commented on the fact that they wished they had found NiM sooner!

This conversation seems to be diverging from the initial issue (privacy policy). The issue was resolved over two weeks ago. And now it would be great to reinstate the URL.

[june07]

@nodejs/tsc has delegated the issue back to the web working group. Apparently that was the wrong place to surface this issue. Can someone from the wwg chime in please. @fhemberger