workstation/tickets

Collection of this group's data for a LLM-powered weekly report #527

New issue

Open

opened 2026-09-09 09:32:34 +00:00 by abompard · 2 comments

abompard commented

2026-09-09 09:32:34 +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:

the desktop mailing-list
discourse posts with the #workstation-wg and #gnome tags
this tracker

In the latest version, I've added the possiblity to gather messages exchanged in Matrix channels. The #workstation 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:

mailing-lists and discourse posts
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.

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: - the `desktop` mailing-list - discourse posts with the `#workstation-wg` and `#gnome` tags - this tracker In the latest version, I've added the possiblity to gather messages exchanged in Matrix channels. The `#workstation` 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 and discourse posts 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.

aday added the

meeting-request

label

2026-09-29 13:42:21 +00:00

aday commented

2026-10-06 14:57:33 +00:00

Owner

Thanks for getting in touch, and apologies for the slow reply @abompard .

We discussed this on the working group recently. I can't speak for every member of the group, but I think there is a feeling that, if something like this were to happen, we'd like to ensure that there's some human review of the posts - we wouldn't want irrelevant or personal details to be included in the updates.

Thanks for getting in touch, and apologies for the slow reply @abompard . We discussed this on the working group recently. I can't speak for every member of the group, but I think there is a feeling that, if something like this were to happen, we'd like to ensure that there's some human review of the posts - we wouldn't want irrelevant or personal details to be included in the updates.

abompard commented

2026-10-07 10:13:36 +00:00

Author

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to discuss this. There is human review of the posts, it's currently done by myself but in the future the plan is to build a Community Blog post that will be reviewable by all Community Blog editors.

No milestone

No project

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

workstation/tickets#527

No description provided.

Rows
Columns