On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 09:41:16AM GMT, Stephen Smoogen wrote: ...snip... > > That said, I also find this unanimous approval problematic for a > couple of reasons: > > 1. There are some subset of people who use Fedora because they thought > it was a privacy focused distribution. Their concerns did not seem to > be taken into account or it needs to be made clearer that is not what > the project aims as a high priority compared to other items. Those > people can then make a choice if the distribution is still what they > want to use. The approved/second/reworked version of this _did_ take lots of people's concerns into account. There were/are still some few people who still didn't like it for whatever reasons, but I think it's pretty clear that concerns were defintely heard. The change owners were very patient and responded to tons of people. You cannot sometimes please everyone. > 2. I would have liked to see a working server and infrastructure plan > on who and how this service is to be run. A service needing to be run > by Fedora Infrastructure usually needs a bit more time to get Yet > Another Service Never Used(*3) running without problems. Yeah, this was somewhat glossed over, but my understanding is that the SIG would be responsible for working with infrastructure on deploying things. In part I think this was not super detailed because no one wanted to do a bunch of planning and implementing before the change was even approved. I think the time to start working on those plans is... now. ;) > 3. This is collecting data which for the most part will end up like > the bug reports from Koschei, Retrace, Abrt, etc.. stored somewhere > with data which very few developers look at except to filter into > another '/dev/null' folder .. but required to have infrastructure > running for over a decade because it might still be needed. Well, that might be the case, but the change owners definitely plan to use this data for their planning. I expect others groups probibly won't short term, but this is really only targeting workstation right now. If it proves very useful to them, other groups may want to look at it. > To me any of those needed to be detailed further. Where does personal > privacy actually fit in the 4 F's. At the confluence of several of them, IMHO. > What happens to users if the Fedora > infrastructure breaks or isn't possible to get to due to some Internet The reporting part would just keep retrying I think, but good to confirm that with change owners. > problem. What is to be done if this turns out to be not needed or > useful after a release or two? I would expect if this doesn't work out, the sig would say 'sorry we don't need that anymore' and infrastructure would oc delete it. > Maybe those aren't FESCO issues (The first one is probably a council > issue, the second one is infrastructure in some ways. but the third > might be.) but I feel they need to be looked at. Absolutely. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ 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
