epel/steering
8
0
Issues 11 Projects Activity

Collection of this group's data for a LLM-powered weekly report #373

New issue
Closed
opened 2026-09-09 15:48:06 +00:00 by abompard · 4 comments
abompard commented 2026-09-09 15:48:06 +00:00
Copy link

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 following mailing-lists: epel-devel, epel-announce and epel-users
  • discourse posts with the #epel-sig tag
  • the following trackers: epel/releng, epel/misc and this one
  • meetings in Matrix meeting channels

In the latest version, I've added the possiblity to gather messages exchanged in Matrix channels. The #epel channel is public and its history is available to anyone, 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 trackers
  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!

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 following mailing-lists: `epel-devel`, `epel-announce` and `epel-users` - discourse posts with the `#epel-sig` tag - the following trackers: `epel/releng`, `epel/misc` and this one - meetings in Matrix meeting channels In the latest version, I've added the possiblity to gather messages exchanged in Matrix channels. The `#epel` channel is public and its history is available to anyone, 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 trackers 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!
tdawson commented 2026-09-16 18:55:26 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

We have discussed this in this weeks EPEL Steering Committee meeting and we have decided to decline your offer.
Thank you for your offer.

We have discussed this in this weeks EPEL Steering Committee meeting and we have decided to decline your offer. Thank you for your offer.
tdawson 2026-09-16 18:55:34 +00:00
abompard commented 2026-09-17 10:05:16 +00:00
Author
Copy link

Thanks for the reply! Is it still OK for me to collect mailing-lists, discourse posts, meeting logs and ticket trackers? Or should I collect nothing from the EPEL group?

Thanks for the reply! Is it still OK for me to collect mailing-lists, discourse posts, meeting logs and ticket trackers? Or should I collect nothing from the EPEL group?
abompard reopened this issue 2026-09-17 10:05:16 +00:00
tdawson commented 2026-09-17 13:47:04 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

You have a point. We really only discussed the Matrix channel. I can bring the rest up again.
I looked over your list and it needs to be trimmed down to

  • mailing-lists: epel-devel, epel-announce
  • discourse posts with the #epel-sig tag
  • tracker: epel/steering
  • Matrix: Only our weekly meeting on #meeting-1:fedoraproject.org

Things I removed:

  • mailing-lists: epel-users - This is no longer used, and from what I can see, is turned off.
  • trackers: epel/releng, epel/misc - These are both used by the RHEL EPEL team. And while public, it isn't something we want mixed in with the regular epel history. They were created specifically so they wouldn't get mixed in with the other EPEL stuff.
  • Matrix: #epel:fedoraproject.org - This is what we had a discussion about and voted that no, we don't want it summarized.

I'll put the meeting tag back on this and we will discuss the other things at next weeks meeting.

You have a point. We really only discussed the Matrix channel. I can bring the rest up again. I looked over your list and it needs to be trimmed down to * mailing-lists: epel-devel, epel-announce * discourse posts with the #epel-sig tag * tracker: epel/steering * Matrix: Only our weekly meeting on #meeting-1:fedoraproject.org Things I removed: * mailing-lists: epel-users - This is no longer used, and from what I can see, is turned off. * trackers: epel/releng, epel/misc - These are both used by the RHEL EPEL team. And while public, it isn't something we want mixed in with the regular epel history. They were created specifically so they wouldn't get mixed in with the other EPEL stuff. * Matrix: #epel:fedoraproject.org - This is what we had a discussion about and voted that no, we don't want it summarized. I'll put the meeting tag back on this and we will discuss the other things at next weeks meeting.
tdawson commented 2026-09-23 18:30:28 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

We discussed your proposal, with the more limited sources of information, at this weeks committee meeting.
We have agreed to your proposal, with gathering limited to these sources of information.

  • mailing-lists: epel-devel, epel-announce
  • discourse posts with the #epel-sig tag
  • tracker: epel/misc, epel/releng, epel/steering
  • Matrix: Only our weekly meeting on #meeting-1:fedoraproject.org

You might notice that we added epel/misc and epel/releng back to the tracker portion. We discussed it, and decided it would be good to have them in your sources.

Thank you very much for doing this.

We discussed your proposal, with the more limited sources of information, at this weeks committee meeting. We have agreed to your proposal, with gathering limited to these sources of information. * mailing-lists: epel-devel, epel-announce * discourse posts with the #epel-sig tag * tracker: epel/misc, epel/releng, epel/steering * Matrix: Only our weekly meeting on #meeting-1:fedoraproject.org You might notice that we added epel/misc and epel/releng back to the tracker portion. We discussed it, and decided it would be good to have them in your sources. Thank you very much for doing this.
👍 1
tdawson 2026-09-23 18:30:28 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
Branches Tags
main
overhaul
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels   
blocked
Something needs to happen for this to move forward

  
Closed As
Approved
 Closed with the reason of Approved

  
Closed As
Cant Fix
 Closed with the reason of Cant Fix

  
Closed As
Deferred
 Closed with the reason of Deferred

  
Closed As
Duplicate
 Closed with the reason of Duplicate

  
Closed As
Fixed
 Closed with the reason of Fixed

  
Closed As
Nothing to do
 Closed with the reason of Nothing to do

  
Closed As
Rejected
 Closed with the reason of Rejected

  
Closed As
Unable to fix
 Closed with the reason of Unable to fix

  
Closed As
Won't fix
 Closed with the reason of Won't fix

  
meeting
  
backlog status
needs review
 Work items that have been created or updated but need review, refinement, or approval before they can be considered ready for sprint planning.

Archived

  
backlog status
ready
 Work items that have been reviewed, refined, and are ready to be committed to a sprint. These items have clear requirements and can be worked on immediately when capacity is available.

Archived

  
chore
Work that needs to be done but doesn't add new functionality or fix bugs. Maintenance tasks that keep the system running smoothly and the codebase clean.

Archived

  
documentation
Work focused on creating, updating, or improving documentation for users, developers, or system administrators.

Archived

  
planned
A task that was added to a sprint from the beggining of it.

  
points
01
 A task that is simple, small, and has very little uncertainty. It should be easy enough for any team member to pick up and complete quickly, without a lot of discussion or research.

  
points
02
 This is a task that is slightly more complex or larger than a "1." It might involve two or three simple steps, but the outcome is still very clear and there's little uncertainty.

  
points
03
 Medium-sized task with some noticeable complexity. It might require a bit more thought or collaboration. The steps are well-defined, but it's not a trivial change.

  
points
05
 A significant piece of work. It has more complexity and a higher degree of uncertainty than smaller tasks. It might require some research, a design discussion, or collaboration across multiple teams.

  
points
08
 Complex task with a lot of uncertainty. It's often the largest size that a team will consider for a single sprint. It likely requires a detailed breakdown and multiple team members to complete.

  
points
13
 Any task that feels like it's a "13" or more is considered an Epic. These are too large and uncertain to be worked on in a single sprint and should be broken down.

Archived

  
priority
high
 This is for work that is critical and needs to be addressed in the next sprint. It's often for urgent bugs, important features, or a major piece of technical debt that is blocking other work.

  
priority
low
 This is for work that is good to do but not urgent. It's a candidate for being worked on when there's extra time or when it rises in importance. It can stay in the backlog for a longer period.

  
priority
medium
 This is for important work that should be done soon, but isn't as urgent as a high-priority item. It will likely be considered for the next 1-2 sprints.

  
sprint status
blocked
 Work items that cannot progress due to external dependencies, blockers, or issues that need resolution.

Archived

  
sprint status
done
 Work items that have been completed, reviewed, and integrated. No further work is needed within the current sprint.

Archived

  
sprint status
in progress
 Work items currently being worked on by a team member. Active development, research, or implementation is happening.

Archived

  
sprint status
review
 Work items that are complete but need review, testing, or approval before being marked as done.

Archived

  
sprint status
to do
 Work items that are committed to the sprint but haven't been started yet. These items are ready to be picked up by team members.

Archived

  
technical debt
Work that addresses shortcuts, workarounds, or suboptimal implementations that were done previously to meet deadlines. These items improve code quality, maintainability, or performance without adding new features.

Archived

  
work item
bug
 Issues where the system is not working as intended or designed. Bugs represent deviations from expected behavior.

Archived

  
work item
epic
 Large initiatives that are broken down into multiple smaller work items (user stories, tasks, bugs). Epics represent significant features or projects that span multiple sprints.

  
work item
spike
 Time-boxed research, investigation, or proof-of-concept work to reduce uncertainty or explore solutions. Spikes help inform future development decisions.

Archived

  
work item
task
 Used to break down larger user stories into smaller, manageable implementation pieces. They focus on the specific technical steps needed to deliver the user story's value.

Archived

  
work item
user story
 User-facing features or functionality that can be framed from a user perspective, describing what someone wants to accomplish and why.

Archived

No labels
blocked
Closed As
Approved
Closed As
Cant Fix
Closed As
Deferred
Closed As
Duplicate
Closed As
Fixed
Closed As
Nothing to do
Closed As
Rejected
Closed As
Unable to fix
Closed As
Won't fix
meeting
backlog status
needs review
backlog status
ready
chore
documentation
planned
points
01
points
02
points
03
points
05
points
08
points
13
priority
high
priority
low
priority
medium
sprint status
blocked
sprint status
done
sprint status
in progress
sprint status
review
sprint status
to do
technical debt
work item
bug
work item
epic
work item
spike
work item
task
work item
user story
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
epel/steering#373
No description provided.