Comment 9 for bug 1053470

It's worth noting that this freeze exception:

1) Doesn't discuss the privacy implications of this change. At. All.
2) Doesn't attempt to justify it's importance level of 'critical' in any way.
3) Does it actually use code to obfuscate that the feature is driven by Mark Shuttleworth and not by community consensus or technical requirement? Or is it just common among insiders to use terms like "sabdfl" to refer to Shuttleworth? When circumventing processes due to pressure from key people, it is doubly important to be transparent about that fact and say out loud: "Mark Shuttleworth wants this feature in now, and thinks that it's so important that it doesn't need to abide by normal project processes or require community review. Here's why..."

In retrospect given the community reaction to this change in Bug #1054776, the lack of meaningful review in the freeze exception is pretty frightening.