On Fri, 2022-08-19 at 10:37 -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 at 08:42, Ian McInerney via devel > <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 1:08 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 2:46 AM Merlin Cooper > > > <mxanthropocene@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > I like this policy, but it strikes me as odd that the > > > > packagers' email > > > > addresses are posted publicly on the Pagure tickets... Wouldn't > > > > that > > > > make it easier for spammers to get more email addresses? > > > > > > The script has a flag I can use in the future which (I believe) > > > will > > > mask the addresses in the tickets. I didn't use it this time > > > because > > > email addresses are already displayed all over the place. If a > > > spammer > > > gets an email address from these tickets that they didn't have > > > before, > > > then I'll be very surprised. > > > > > > > > > I really wish people would stop making the argument that just > > because other places/systems have terrible data hygiene, we can > > have terrible data hygiene too. Fedora should be trying to set the > > example of how to interact and behave, and the "follow the herd" > > mentality here is not acceptable in my opinion. > > > > Email address could be considered PII, and so there is a debate > > about when the GDPR-type regulations would apply to them (from what > > I read, it would apply for work email addresses giving full names > > or personal email addresses). While there is a legal basis for > > keeping the email address in the system and using it, I fail to see > > a legal basis that would allow publicly displaying an email address > > in this way. > > > > Many systems are also trying to reduce the exposure of personal > > email addresses, with major git hosting providers even creating > > anonymous commit emails that can be associated with user accounts > > on those systems and then used for your commits should you choose. > > > > So in short, I strongly argue for masking/removing the email > > address from all tickets like this, and the fact that they are > > displayed there was is so concerning to me that I opened a ticket > > about it last night: > > https://pagure.io/find-inactive-packagers/issue/619. > > > > > > > I am going to argue that this isn't bad data hygiene because this > data being public serves an important purpose for the ongoing working > of this project. > > When you become a Fedora maintainer, you are not just helping your > fellow maintainers, you are also helping the general public who may > be upstream developers, users, and packagers in different projects. > When a person makes a change or has had their 'hands' on a package, > that is made public in many many places to make sure that any and all > interested people can contact them for questions. Upstream may have > suggestions to make that change better or worse. Other packagers may > need to understand why that package affects them. Packagers in > different projects need to contact to see if this will solve their > problem with said package or not. This has been and is mostly still > done via email first and bugzilla and other methods last. > > When that information is not easily available, trust in the change, > package, maintainer drops. That lack of trust tends to boil through > many areas and lowers trust in the overall operations of the > distribution. Because of this, email addresses for packagers have > never been very secret. They are in spec files, they are in email > posts about changes to packages, they are in various message buses > which anyone can subscribe to on the idea that the information being > free improves trust. > > Then there comes the removal of privileges. This is a big concern and > needs to be done in an open and clear fashion. Other developers and > packagers need to understand WHO was attempted to be contacted and > why that contact may have failed. When other projects have not done > this in an open arena, it has caused unrelated packagers to quit > because they are not sure they can trust the project to not do the > same with them. There is also the fact that email addresses change a > lot and sometimes the person who has been listed as > `foobaz@xxxxxxxxxx` may have gone to `notme@notmy.email` and need to > update their info. It might be even clear that notme@notmy.email has > been active in bugzilla or some other area but hasn't done a build > because a different maintainer has done so. > > We may need to come up with different methods of 'trust'. That is a > larger conversation because it would require a complete rethink of > what we are as a project and how we 'trust' each other, and allow > others to 'trust' us. > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue Might I suggest that the equivalent fedora email, i.e. user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, is instead published? That way the user can receive and redirect packaging mail while at least retaining a layer of anonymity. Or is that not possible? _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
