Add an option to avoid sharing participant emails in finalized calendar hit

[charles-m-knox]

As discussed in my PR #1205 , I want the ability to hide the list of attendees from the finalized calendar hit. I lead a few organizations and use Rally to gather consensus for 100+ people at times. My users have not consented to share their email with other users.

I implemented this successfully in #1205 and tested it, but it was closed by @lukevella on the grounds it doesn't fit his design parameters.

@lukevella please discuss your thoughts with me in this thread. Thank you

[charles-m-knox]

I added it as a poll setting because some polls only have a handful of attendees (small group meetings can have emails shared usually), whereas other polls have many participants.

For example: in a recent large poll, I unintentionally shared every participant's email with all other participants, which I think is generally not the desired behavior for larger polls.

Therefore, the finalized ICS calendar hit should be configurable to show or hide everyone who responded.

I think adding this in the poll creation settings is sensible. I'd be curious to hear @lukevella 's perspective, perhaps there's something I overlooked.

[lukevella]

Hi @charles-m-knox, I think if this were to be implemented it would make a lot more sense to be part of the Finalize dialog. I'm not sure how this can be effectively communicated to the user and this is the first time I'm hearing about such a request. You might be right about users wanting this but a single data-point is not enough to start investing time into something which I hope you will understand.

I'm moving this to discussions as it's not something that will likely be addressed soon.

[charles-m-knox]

Hi @lukevella I appreciate your feedback. I'm open to waiting until you hear from other folks that might ask for this feature. Gathering data before making decisions is always important.

I'd encourage you to consider a couple things:

• The work is already done in my PR. It works as-is.
• I am getting a slight sense of analysis paralysis from you. I don't think you need to overthink it.
• If you're uncertain how to proceed, we could implement it as an experimental feature, and have an env flag that exposes the field.
• We can add a question mark bubble with a link to documentation on the feature, which I'd be happy to contribute.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thank you