Collection of this group's data for a LLM-powered weekly report #128

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-09-09 15:52:29 +00:00 by abompard · 2 comments

abompard commented

2026-09-09 15:52:29 +00:00

Hi folks,

I'm generating a weekly report of activity in the Fedora project centered on teams and SIGs, it's called This Week in Fedora. This generation uses an LLM. The goal is to make it easier to catch up with everything that's going on in the project, and to give visibility to each group's work and requests for help or testing. I think that from a newcomer's point of view, having an insight on what a group is working on at a point in time is helpful to decide whether it's interesting and worth contributing to.
I'm collecting activity from:

the atomic mailing-list
discourse posts with the #atomic-desktops-team, #silverblue-team and #kinoite-team tag
this tracker
meetings in Matrix meeting channels

In the latest version, I've added the possiblity to gather messages exchanged in Matrix channels. The #atomic-desktops channel is public and its history is available to new members, but a quite a few people in mutiple Matrix channels were unhappy about the LLM collecting this info, for various reasons.
I would like to know whether this group is OK with my program collecting and submitting info to an LLM from the following sources:

mailing-lists, discourse posts and meetings
the tracker
the matrix channel

I would like to make the case for source 3 (the Matrix channel) because I think it's less obvious: knowing the "tone" of a conversation and the currently discussed subjects before joining is very important to help contribute to it. It's like when you're added to an empty group chat and you don't know how to start. That's why we show history to new channel members, and this would be the same idea at a higher level. Plus there's actual work going on in there for a lot of groups.
That said, I recognize that the form of the tool influences its use, chat messages are usually less thought-through than emails or forum posts, and members could be indimidated that something they write there and regret end up in a visible summary (the program respects message edits, but anyway).
Since my goal is to foster participation, the one thing I don't want to do is to hinder it in another way.

I know I've asked this in the chat yesterday but someone in another room noted that people can easily miss Matrix messages, which it true.

Please decide which collected sources, if any, you are OK with (and if you work in other places that you would like to have collected, of course (I can do RSS feeds!)). If the group is OK with Matrix channel collection but some individuals aren't, I can also exclude certain Matrix usernames from collection throughout the Matrix channels that are not meetings.

I'm happy to answer questions if you have any. Thanks!

Hi folks, I'm generating a weekly report of activity in the Fedora project centered on teams and SIGs, it's called [This Week in Fedora](https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/twif/). This generation uses an LLM. The goal is to make it easier to catch up with everything that's going on in the project, and to give visibility to each group's work and requests for help or testing. I think that from a newcomer's point of view, having an insight on what a group is working on at a point in time is helpful to decide whether it's interesting and worth contributing to. I'm collecting activity from: - the `atomic` mailing-list - discourse posts with the `#atomic-desktops-team`, `#silverblue-team` and `#kinoite-team` tag - this tracker - meetings in Matrix meeting channels In the latest version, I've added the possiblity to gather messages exchanged in Matrix channels. The `#atomic-desktops` channel is public and its history is available to new members, but a quite a few people in mutiple Matrix channels were unhappy about the LLM collecting this info, for various reasons. I would like to know whether this group is OK with my program collecting and submitting info to an LLM from the following sources: 1. mailing-lists, discourse posts and meetings 2. the tracker 3. the matrix channel I would like to make the case for source 3 (the Matrix channel) because I think it's less obvious: knowing the "tone" of a conversation and the currently discussed subjects before joining is very important to help contribute to it. It's like when you're added to an empty group chat and you don't know how to start. That's why we show history to new channel members, and this would be the same idea at a higher level. Plus there's actual work going on in there for a lot of groups. That said, I recognize that the form of the tool influences its use, chat messages are usually less thought-through than emails or forum posts, and members could be indimidated that something they write there and regret end up in a visible summary (the program respects message edits, but anyway). Since my goal is to foster participation, the one thing I don't want to do is to hinder it in another way. I know I've asked this in the chat yesterday but someone in another room noted that people can easily miss Matrix messages, which it true. Please decide which collected sources, if any, you are OK with (and if you work in other places that you would like to have collected, of course (I can do RSS feeds!)). If the group is OK with Matrix channel collection but some individuals aren't, I can also exclude certain Matrix usernames from collection throughout the Matrix channels that are not meetings. I'm happy to answer questions if you have any. Thanks!

siosm commented

2026-09-15 20:50:23 +00:00

Owner

Hey Aurélien, here are some thoughts:

The atomic mailing list is not used by this group. It is likely unused or abandoned.
I think the report should include links to the sources used to generate each part of the summary (a link to a tracker issue, etc.).
I'm not in favor of automatically processed and not verified summaries of matrix discussions. I will likely not read those summaries so if there are errors there, it will reflect badly on the people involved.

Hey Aurélien, here are some thoughts: - The atomic mailing list is not used by this group. It is likely unused or abandoned. - I think the report should include links to the sources used to generate each part of the summary (a link to a tracker issue, etc.). - I'm not in favor of automatically processed and not verified summaries of matrix discussions. I will likely not read those summaries so if there are errors there, it will reflect badly on the people involved.

abompard commented

2026-09-16 07:49:40 +00:00

Author

Noted, I'll drop the mailing-list and disable collection from the Matrix room.
About links to the sources, it should use URLs to point to the source element directly in the summary. I could add something more explicit like a list of the sources I'm mentioning above, but I need to think of how this would look UI-wise, I don't want to overload it either. Maybe something like a collapsible section would work.

Noted, I'll drop the mailing-list and disable collection from the Matrix room. About links to the sources, it should use URLs to point to the source element directly in the summary. I could add something more explicit like a list of the sources I'm mentioning above, but I need to think of how this would look UI-wise, I don't want to overload it either. Maybe something like a collapsible section would work.

👍 1