Collection of this group's data for a LLM-powered weekly report #151

New issue

Open

opened 2026-09-09 08:59:16 +00:00 by abompard · 3 comments

abompard commented

2026-09-09 08:59:16 +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. 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:

mailing-lists
discourse posts with the mindshare, commops-team, magazine-team, ambassadors-team and marketing-team tags
meetings on Matrix meeting channels for Mindshare, Magazine and Commops
this tracker and the commops tracker
announcements from the "News" category in Discourse and Fedora Magazine

In the latest version, I've added the possiblity to gather messages exchanged in Matrix channels. The channels are public and their 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:

mailing-lists and discourse posts
trackers
the following matrix channels: #mindshare, #commops, #marketing, #ambassadors and #magazine

I would like to make the case for source 3 (the Matrix channels) 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.

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. 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: - mailing-lists - discourse posts with the `mindshare`, `commops-team`, `magazine-team`, `ambassadors-team` and `marketing-team` tags - meetings on Matrix meeting channels for Mindshare, Magazine and Commops - this tracker and the commops tracker - announcements from the "News" category in Discourse and Fedora Magazine In the latest version, I've added the possiblity to gather messages exchanged in Matrix channels. The channels are public and their 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 and discourse posts 2. trackers 3. the following matrix channels: `#mindshare`, `#commops`, `#marketing`, `#ambassadors` and `#magazine` I would like to make the case for source 3 (the Matrix channels) 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. 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

theprogram commented

2026-09-17 10:32:36 +00:00

Member

Reporting on issue trackers might be okay, but that is something a human could do fairly easily. I'm not sure who other than senior managers and journalists would benefit though. If people are interested they can just read the trackers themselves.

I disagree with monitoring and reporting on team channels, we are kicking around ideas, and need a free space to chat that is not constantly reported on and likely misreported on.

I think that monitoring and reporting on meetings is okay, but we have had Claufe totally misrepresent people and decisions even in meeting summaries. Therefore I do not think that publishing such reports is reliable. Reporting on issue trackers might be okay, but that is something a human could do fairly easily. I'm not sure who other than senior managers and journalists would benefit though. If people are interested they can just read the trackers themselves. I disagree with monitoring and reporting on team channels, we are kicking around ideas, and need a free space to chat that is not constantly reported on and likely misreported on.

abompard commented

2026-09-18 15:53:27 +00:00

Author

Thanks for the response! By "team channels", do you mean only Matrix channels or also the mailing-lists and the discourse posts?

t0xic0der commented

2026-09-21 05:25:18 +00:00

Owner

@abompard, I share the same reservations as @theprogram does, but I do not have problem as long as the reports are curated by an actual individual before they are sent out in the wild. We want more hands on deck and TWIF might just help us with that.

No milestone

No project

No assignees

3 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

mindshare/tickets#151

No description provided.

Rows
Columns