Re: Modularity survey - results
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 7:56:35 AM MST Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 19. 05. 20 16:46, Christopher wrote: > > > Interesting that the survey shows that the most common response was that > > people use it "not at all" and the overall response was negative, but > > the reaction to that is, "improve the docs" and "works as intended". Am I > > the only one who thinks that the people pushing modularity aren't > > listening to the larger community? > FWIW I understand the action point for this survey as a way to improve the > situation for environments where we are "stuck with modularity" (such as > RHEL and EPEL 8) rather than a call for action that says "if we fix this, > we'll proceed with Fedora modularization". > > -- > Miro Hrončok > -- > Phone: +420777974800 > IRC: mhroncok Based on the conclusions section, where it talks only of Fedora releases as goal dates, I can't see that as being the case. -- John M. Harris, Jr. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity survey - results
Daniel Mach wrote: > Our goal (I speak for the people who *currently* work on Modularity > project at Red Hat) is *not* pushing anyone to use Modularity. It's up > to Fesco, SIGs, spin maintainers and individual package maintainers to > make their choices. But our point is that it should be up to individual *users*. Modularity needs to become fully optional, i.e.: * disable `*modular*.repo` by default, * keep default streams banned (as they are now provisionally), * ban module-only packages: modular versions should only be allowed as alternatives to existing packages, * encourage using parallel-installable compatibility packages rather than modules wherever reasonable (e.g., libraries, language interpreters, …). Then you can play with the technology as much as you want, without disturbing anybody. (But you will probably find that users will prefer other ways to get alternative software versions, i.e., Copr for leaf packages, parallel-installable compatibility packages for non-leaf packages.) Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity survey - results
Christopher wrote: > Interesting that the survey shows that the most common response was that > people use it "not at all" and the overall response was negative, but the > reaction to that is, "improve the docs" and "works as intended". Am I the > only one who thinks that the people pushing modularity aren't listening to > the larger community? Indeed, it looks like the only kind of action justified by the responses is "axe the whole thing". (See the remainder of my mail for the rationale.) And the proposed solutions (under "Conclusions and Plans") for the encountered issues are not convincing me at all. E.g.: | Problems finding modular or non-modular RPMs hidden by an active module | Stream | Solution: The problem is fixed in Fedora 32 already by the patch | [https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/1483] . | | Problems with modular RPMs overriding non-modular RPMs | It works per design. Any change proposals should be discussed first. I think this is a design flaw that cannot just be filed off as "works per design", considering that many people have issues with it. And the solution to allow "finding" the hidden RPMs through the obscure "dnf module provides" command (see the linked "fix") is not of much use, considering that it is not how people normally look for packages (and it is not exposed in any UI). > I used to love Fedora for being my community distro... but ever since > modularity, things seem to be far less about the community, and far more > about doing what a tiny few want. Modularity has some good ideas... it has > some merit... just like SCL had some good ideas... but good ideas aren't > enough to override the fact that few people want it, and most people find > it more problematic than beneficial. Indeed, the vast majority of packagers that answered do not package modules at all, only RPMs. More respondents do not even use modularity at all than use it frequently. And "use it occasionally" is not well-defined, since default streams in some existing Fedora releases mean that you end up "using modularity occasionally" if you do not go out of your way to avoid it (by disabling the modular repositories, which Fedora explicitly recommends against). So we might not even have a majority using modularity deliberately. (One needs to ask better questions to find that out.) > The disproportionate size of the effort and disproportionate disruption it > has caused to the stability of Fedora packaging, just don't seem to be > justifiable at the current level of maturity. Agreed. > For what it's worth, I applaud the efforts of the modularity team for the > kind of research and development they've put in to the system... I don't > fault them at all for their work to experiment with a new packaging > paradigm... Also keep in mind that the current Modularity team is basically a new team that inherited the flawed design from the original Modularity team. > I just think the degree of experimentation on the packager experience > while packagers still need to do their packaging, wasn't the right venue > for that experimentation, and Fedora had suffered immensely as a > consequence. I agree here too. So a big +1 to your message. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity survey - results
Dne 19. 05. 20 v 16:56 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): On 19. 05. 20 16:46, Christopher wrote: Interesting that the survey shows that the most common response was that people use it "not at all" and the overall response was negative, but the reaction to that is, "improve the docs" and "works as intended". Am I the only one who thinks that the people pushing modularity aren't listening to the larger community? FWIW I understand the action point for this survey as a way to improve the situation for environments where we are "stuck with modularity" (such as RHEL and EPEL 8) rather than a call for action that says "if we fix this, we'll proceed with Fedora modularization". Exactly. Our goal is to improve the *existing* implementation of Modularity (RHEL 8 and EPEL 8 compatibility is important for us) and make it *available* to any projects under Fedora Project umbrella, which includes Fedora and EPEL 8. That's why we'll focus on the docs in the first place. The survey confirmed that people make a lot of assumptions about Modularity and interpret it in their own ways and this is source of many misunderstandings. When we're all on the same page, we can move on and work on individual fixes. Our goal (I speak for the people who *currently* work on Modularity project at Red Hat) is *not* pushing anyone to use Modularity. It's up to Fesco, SIGs, spin maintainers and individual package maintainers to make their choices. Please note that we are not the same people who created Modularity, we took it over recently and we are expected to maintain it, not to redesign it from scratch. Please give us a chance to prove that we listen to the community. I interpret the survey results that some people in Fedora would use modules to build and distribute multiple versions of their software stacks, but the increased complexity and related issues are not worth it. I believe that to make Modularity successful and useful for the community, we need to simplify it and better integrate it with the rpm ecosystem. Make it more straightforward for those who build or distribute modules and nearly invisible for those who consume them. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity survey - results
On 19. 05. 20 16:46, Christopher wrote: Interesting that the survey shows that the most common response was that people use it "not at all" and the overall response was negative, but the reaction to that is, "improve the docs" and "works as intended". Am I the only one who thinks that the people pushing modularity aren't listening to the larger community? FWIW I understand the action point for this survey as a way to improve the situation for environments where we are "stuck with modularity" (such as RHEL and EPEL 8) rather than a call for action that says "if we fix this, we'll proceed with Fedora modularization". -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity survey - results
Interesting that the survey shows that the most common response was that people use it "not at all" and the overall response was negative, but the reaction to that is, "improve the docs" and "works as intended". Am I the only one who thinks that the people pushing modularity aren't listening to the larger community? I used to love Fedora for being my community distro... but ever since modularity, things seem to be far less about the community, and far more about doing what a tiny few want. Modularity has some good ideas... it has some merit... just like SCL had some good ideas... but good ideas aren't enough to override the fact that few people want it, and most people find it more problematic than beneficial. The disproportionate size of the effort and disproportionate disruption it has caused to the stability of Fedora packaging, just don't seem to be justifiable at the current level of maturity. For what it's worth, I applaud the efforts of the modularity team for the kind of research and development they've put in to the system... I don't fault them at all for their work to experiment with a new packaging paradigm... I just think the degree of experimentation on the packager experience while packagers still need to do their packaging, wasn't the right venue for that experimentation, and Fedora had suffered immensely as a consequence. On Tue, May 19, 2020, 06:46 Daniel Mach wrote: > Hello everyone, > We have finally evaluated all of your responses to the Modularity > survey. You can find the results posted on the Fedora community blog[1]. > > Thanks to all of you who filled the survey and provided detailed > explanation of what works and what not. > > > [1] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/modularity-survey-results/ > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > 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@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Modularity survey - results
Hello everyone, We have finally evaluated all of your responses to the Modularity survey. You can find the results posted on the Fedora community blog[1]. Thanks to all of you who filled the survey and provided detailed explanation of what works and what not. [1] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/modularity-survey-results/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
John M. Harris Jr wrote: > Let's be honest, this doesn't even really make sense for RHEL. I agree that the current design of Modularity is inherently flawed (because it allows version conflicts to happen that cannot be resolved by the user), but in the context of RHEL, I can see where the demand comes from, whereas in Fedora, the problem Modularity is trying to solve did not exist to begin with. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
Le lundi 13 avril 2020 à 13:34 -0400, Matthew Miller a écrit : > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 01:30:57PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > That is another major concern, that decisions made by Fedora for > > Fedora > > users depend more and more on input from people (and companies) who > > are NOT > > Fedora users. What makes sense for RHEL and/or CentOS does not > > necessarily > > make sense for Fedora (and for that matter, what makes sense for > > RHEL also > > does not necessarily make sense for CentOS). Fedora decisions > > should depend > > ONLY on the input and needs of Fedora users. > > Fedora has huge impact beyond our immediate userbase because we are > the upstream for RHEL, CentOS, and their further derivatives. > > Take a look https://imgur.com/a/58OXYve. This is Fedora EPEL (which > is part of our project!), not the downstreams themselves, but shows > just *one* aspect of that impact. Another way to see things is that Fedora has a huge impact precisely because Fedora decicions are depening ONLY on the input and needs of Fedora users, and Fedora users have been consistently refusing the short-termist non future-proof self-defeating shortcuts that plague some of Fedora’s downstreams. Fedora takes the long view. Over a significant span of time, that produces better results than quick hacks. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
On Saturday, April 11, 2020 4:30:57 AM MST Kevin Kofler wrote: > Alex Scheel wrote: > > > Look folks. This isn't a Fedora-only survey. It is a survey run by Red > > Hat > > members who are looking to engage with a community that includes Fedora, > > Red Hat, CentOS and a bunch of other stakeholders as well. I think we can > > all recognize that Google Apps usage is high among businesses. > > > That is another major concern, that decisions made by Fedora for Fedora > users depend more and more on input from people (and companies) who are NOT > Fedora users. What makes sense for RHEL and/or CentOS does not > necessarily make sense for Fedora (and for that matter, what makes sense > for RHEL also does not necessarily make sense for CentOS). Fedora decisions > should depend ONLY on the input and needs of Fedora users. > > Kevin Kofler Let's be honest, this doesn't even really make sense for RHEL. -- John M. Harris, Jr. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 01:30:57PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > That is another major concern, that decisions made by Fedora for Fedora > users depend more and more on input from people (and companies) who are NOT > Fedora users. What makes sense for RHEL and/or CentOS does not necessarily > make sense for Fedora (and for that matter, what makes sense for RHEL also > does not necessarily make sense for CentOS). Fedora decisions should depend > ONLY on the input and needs of Fedora users. Fedora has huge impact beyond our immediate userbase because we are the upstream for RHEL, CentOS, and their further derivatives. Take a look https://imgur.com/a/58OXYve. This is Fedora EPEL (which is part of our project!), not the downstreams themselves, but shows just *one* aspect of that impact. (It's so large that I see I need to figure out how to tell matplotlib to not shift to e notation!) I agree that when we make decisions in Fedora, we need to consider direct users of the OS we make first. But we are also making a system we _want_ to be useful as an upstream, and taking downstream needs into account is the only way we can succeed at that. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader Not the Pope ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
Alex Scheel wrote: > Look folks. This isn't a Fedora-only survey. It is a survey run by Red Hat > members who are looking to engage with a community that includes Fedora, > Red Hat, CentOS and a bunch of other stakeholders as well. I think we can > all recognize that Google Apps usage is high among businesses. That is another major concern, that decisions made by Fedora for Fedora users depend more and more on input from people (and companies) who are NOT Fedora users. What makes sense for RHEL and/or CentOS does not necessarily make sense for Fedora (and for that matter, what makes sense for RHEL also does not necessarily make sense for CentOS). Fedora decisions should depend ONLY on the input and needs of Fedora users. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > I personally considered it quite clear that the intended meaning was that > > they are not giving the data away to anyone external deliberately. Your > > responses will be read and understood by a very small group of people and > > not published in raw form. Yes there are servers and software providers > > along the way. But this way you could also include the ISPs who also are > > not prevented from snooping in your packets (and it's trivial at least > for > > plain text emails). And even if they provided a "direct" way to send your > > responses to their email, and we ignored the ISPs, still, Google is the > > email provider for most RedHatters. So there's no improvement at all. > > Er. It's a Google Survey, provided over https. Email is not involved. > No, it isn't. I was just trying to point out that even if they said "send us your responses directly to our email", it wouldn't be better for people's privacy, but possibly even slightly worse. It wasn't directly related to what you said but rather to "Once again, Fedora is depending on third-party, proprietary, privacy-invading SaaS" sentiment. I probably should have quoted it better. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
Updated. Thanks both of you for the suggestion. Dne 08. 04. 20 v 19:59 Adam Williamson napsal(a): On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 13:47 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote: Hey Daniel, do you mind updating the GDPR compliance tag to include Google? Right, this is all I intended in the first place :) A simple: -The raw data will not be provided to anyone else at Red Hat or any 3rd parties +The raw data will not be provided to anyone else at Red Hat or any 3rd parties (except Google) would do the trick just fine. We didn't need a big thread about it... ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 13:47 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote: > Hey Daniel, do you mind updating the GDPR compliance tag to include > Google? Right, this is all I intended in the first place :) A simple: -The raw data will not be provided to anyone else at Red Hat or any 3rd parties +The raw data will not be provided to anyone else at Red Hat or any 3rd parties (except Google) would do the trick just fine. We didn't need a big thread about it... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
Hey Daniel, do you mind updating the GDPR compliance tag to include Google? Thanks! - Original Message - > From: "Adam Williamson" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:27 PM > Subject: Re: Modularity Survey > > On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 08:41 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote: > > > > There's a marketing piece from 2017 that alleges that none of gsuite > > (including their gmail for gsuite!) gets scanned for ads: > > > > https://www.blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in-the-enterprise-g-suites-gmail-and-consumer-gmail-to-more-closely-align/ > > > > > > I think we can agree that--at one point in time (2014-2017)--Google's > > position was that they aren't scanning gsuite content. > > But that's not what a GDPR declaration is about at all. It doesn't have > anything to do with what the entity who gets the data claims they are > or are not doing with it. Only with whether or not they get the data. > > I don't know or care whether Google is automatically scanning the > content for the purpose of showing advertising or not, really. But > that's not the question here at all. I'm going to quit responding sometime as this really has gotten out of hand, but please look at the context for my original mail in this subthread. Please, read the context in which I was responding! https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RGNGPXMXW4E6W4X6DUTLYWI4ZYQS3CHF/ and https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BBA25DUX4HZMYLGEDS7ZDLN2SQX5IYFU/ > > Indeed. Once again, Fedora is depending on third-party, proprietary, > > privacy-invading SaaS. > Meets exactly my thoughts... > This is yet again another disappointing choice of tool. > > I'm not going to give anything to Google, hence I can _not_ answer the > survey. > Too bad, there is much to be said about modularity, as the lengthy > threads have already shown. > > Unfortunately, Fedora is drifting more and more away from the Libre > Software philosophy that over time made me a Linux-only user and a > Fedora packager. At some point, I will have to put my money where my > mouth is and find another ship. > Yes, I'm bitter... The replies I was responding to weren't expressly GDPR comments! They're attacks on people! IMO, that should've been called out. So I did. I agree, from a GDPR compliance perspective, someone with access to the survey could add a disclaimer. But insinuations that Google is using the data submitted by this form, on their own, is IMO, wrong. And should be called out. That's why I did. > > I'll make the assumption that, were this to have changed, a number > > of large businesses would've been upset and there would've been > > media reports and potentially legal proceedings. I haven't found > > any. :-) > > Again I don't know why you're all making assumptions like this? Don't > you read the news? Google (and Facebook et al) have been "caught" doing > all sorts of stuff with user data all the time. It does make the news. > Frequently. I do read the news. Google and Facebook have been caught abusing **individual** data. I agree with you on that. I think it is wrong and they should stop. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about an enterprise gsuite account with a contract between Google and Red Hat. Where are the news articles about Google doing data mining on other companies data? Perhaps I've missed all the relevant news articles though. I'd imagine, with all the data companies store in Google drive, this would've been an easy case. To not use GMail is one thing. To attack those who created an optional survey--based on an unproven premise--is IMO, out of line. It isn't being excellent to others. And to be clear, the two posters I replied to weren't being excellent; you were ok. - Alex ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 08:41 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote: > > There's a marketing piece from 2017 that alleges that none of gsuite > (including their gmail for gsuite!) gets scanned for ads: > > https://www.blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in-the-enterprise-g-suites-gmail-and-consumer-gmail-to-more-closely-align/ > > > I think we can agree that--at one point in time (2014-2017)--Google's > position was that they aren't scanning gsuite content. But that's not what a GDPR declaration is about at all. It doesn't have anything to do with what the entity who gets the data claims they are or are not doing with it. Only with whether or not they get the data. I don't know or care whether Google is automatically scanning the content for the purpose of showing advertising or not, really. But that's not the question here at all. > I'll make the assumption that, were this to have changed, a number > of large businesses would've been upset and there would've been > media reports and potentially legal proceedings. I haven't found > any. :-) Again I don't know why you're all making assumptions like this? Don't you read the news? Google (and Facebook et al) have been "caught" doing all sorts of stuff with user data all the time. It does make the news. Frequently. https://www.theverge.com/interface is a good column if you want to keep up with this sort of stuff. But, regardless, it *doesn't matter*. If you're going to make a declaration about who's getting the data, it should be accurate. It doesn't matter what those entities are or are not doing with it, because that's not what your declaration said, it didn't say "this data is only being given to third parties who pinky-swear not to automatically scan it for advertising purposes", it said "The raw data will not be provided to anyone else at Red Hat or any 3rd parties". -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 10:25 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:22 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 13:12 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote: > > > I'm sure we can trust that Red Hat did its > > > > > > due diligence and Google isn't using responses to a customer's form to > > > > > > track those taking the survey. > > > > I don't really know why you'd think anyone can trust that. Google > > tracks everyone everywhere as hard as it can. It's what Google *does*. > > > > But I didn't actually suggest it's Terribly Awful to run this survey > > through Google. I just said the privacy declaration seems to be wrong. > > > > I personally considered it quite clear that the intended meaning was that > they are not giving the data away to anyone external deliberately. Your > responses will be read and understood by a very small group of people and > not published in raw form. Yes there are servers and software providers > along the way. But this way you could also include the ISPs who also are > not prevented from snooping in your packets (and it's trivial at least for > plain text emails). And even if they provided a "direct" way to send your > responses to their email, and we ignored the ISPs, still, Google is the > email provider for most RedHatters. So there's no improvement at all. Er. It's a Google Survey, provided over https. Email is not involved. "On behalf of Red Hat's Modularity team, I'd like to ask you to fill out a survey on Modularity: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScOA97rGONieSOYmlZLsHdkq-EhdePZ4IN3RwOjJKd1F1a9sw/viewform?usp=sf_link; so there is no involvement of email servers, and the data is encrypted so no, your ISP can't snoop on it. I sort of got the intended meaning as well. But this seems to be a legally-required GDPR text, I don't think "we sort of get what you mean" cuts the mustard for those. If the data is going to Google it's going to Google and I think that's supposed to be declared. > I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it, but the points mentioned are > common for most data submissions anywhere. I don't think it was the core of > the message. The bullet point I quoted was under "Privacy / GDPR:". Pretty sure it's the "core" of that. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
(I had several replies to Adam, but I ultimately got stuck finding supporting URLs until I revisited it this morning.) IANAL. - Original Message - > From: "Kamil Paral" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:25:55 AM > Subject: Re: Modularity Survey > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:22 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 13:12 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote: > > > I'm sure we can trust that Red Hat did its > > > > > > due diligence and Google isn't using responses to a customer's form to > > > > > > track those taking the survey. > > > > I don't really know why you'd think anyone can trust that. Google > > tracks everyone everywhere as hard as it can. It's what Google *does*. > > > > But I didn't actually suggest it's Terribly Awful to run this survey > > through Google. I just said the privacy declaration seems to be wrong. > > > > I personally considered it quite clear that the intended meaning was that > they are not giving the data away to anyone external deliberately. Your > responses will be read and understood by a very small group of people and > not published in raw form. Yes there are servers and software providers > along the way. But this way you could also include the ISPs who also are > not prevented from snooping in your packets (and it's trivial at least for > plain text emails). And even if they provided a "direct" way to send your > responses to their email, and we ignored the ISPs, still, Google is the > email provider for most RedHatters. So there's no improvement at all. > > I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it, but the points mentioned are > common for most data submissions anywhere. I don't think it was the core of > the message. :-) It is tricky trying to pin down what Google does, on the outside, without any knowledge of what contracts actually got negotiated. There is an undated white paper which directly discusses it: https://gsuite.google.com/learn-more/security/security-whitepaper/page-6.html#no-advertising The only date mentioned there is 2014. Coincidentally, the 2014 Google Apps privacy policy also explicitly called it out: https://gsuite.google.com/intl/en_us/terms/2014/2/premier_terms_ie.html I tried looking at the new terms link on gsuite's page: https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ But that just redirects to the generic, Google-wide page: https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en Which is geared more towards consumers than enterprises. Neither "enterprise" nor "premier" appear. On the list of apps page: https://policies.google.com/terms/service-specific?hl=en There's a link here: https://www.google.com/drive/terms-of-service/?hl=en You can control who sees ads even, in a gsuite account, so maybe that's sufficient: https://support.google.com/a/answer/6304811?hl=en There's a marketing piece from 2017 that alleges that none of gsuite (including their gmail for gsuite!) gets scanned for ads: https://www.blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in-the-enterprise-g-suites-gmail-and-consumer-gmail-to-more-closely-align/ I think we can agree that--at one point in time (2014-2017)--Google's position was that they aren't scanning gsuite content. I'll make the assumption that, were this to have changed, a number of large businesses would've been upset and there would've been media reports and potentially legal proceedings. I haven't found any. :-) My 2c. - Alex Not delivered by GMail ;-) > > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > 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@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:22 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 13:12 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote: > > I'm sure we can trust that Red Hat did its > > > > due diligence and Google isn't using responses to a customer's form to > > > > track those taking the survey. > > I don't really know why you'd think anyone can trust that. Google > tracks everyone everywhere as hard as it can. It's what Google *does*. > > But I didn't actually suggest it's Terribly Awful to run this survey > through Google. I just said the privacy declaration seems to be wrong. > I personally considered it quite clear that the intended meaning was that they are not giving the data away to anyone external deliberately. Your responses will be read and understood by a very small group of people and not published in raw form. Yes there are servers and software providers along the way. But this way you could also include the ISPs who also are not prevented from snooping in your packets (and it's trivial at least for plain text emails). And even if they provided a "direct" way to send your responses to their email, and we ignored the ISPs, still, Google is the email provider for most RedHatters. So there's no improvement at all. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it, but the points mentioned are common for most data submissions anywhere. I don't think it was the core of the message. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 13:12 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote: > I'm sure we can trust that Red Hat did its > > due diligence and Google isn't using responses to a customer's form to > > track those taking the survey. I don't really know why you'd think anyone can trust that. Google tracks everyone everywhere as hard as it can. It's what Google *does*. But I didn't actually suggest it's Terribly Awful to run this survey through Google. I just said the privacy declaration seems to be wrong. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
- Original Message - > From: "Xavier Bachelot" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > , "Kevin Kofler" > > Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:15:37 PM > Subject: Re: Modularity Survey > > Le 07/04/2020 à 12:29, Kevin Kofler a écrit : > > Adam Williamson wrote: > >> Well. Uh. Clearly it's being provided to *Google*. > > > > Indeed. Once again, Fedora is depending on third-party, proprietary, > > privacy-invading SaaS. > > > > Meets exactly my thoughts... > This is yet again another disappointing choice of tool. > > I'm not going to give anything to Google, hence I can _not_ answer the > survey. > Too bad, there is much to be said about modularity, as the lengthy > threads have already shown. > > Unfortunately, Fedora is drifting more and more away from the Libre > Software philosophy that over time made me a Linux-only user and a > Fedora packager. At some point, I will have to put my money where my > mouth is and find another ship. > Yes, I'm bitter... (I'm not on the modularity team). Look folks. This isn't a Fedora-only survey. It is a survey run by Red Hat members who are looking to engage with a community that includes Fedora, Red Hat, CentOS and a bunch of other stakeholders as well. I think we can all recognize that Google Apps usage is high among businesses. Yeah, if this were a Fedora-only survey, we all would've hoped they'd go for an open source tool. But it isn't Fedora-only. And pretending like it matters for this IMO, isn't a legitimate complaint. This is a business backed Google Apps account. I'm sure we can trust that Red Hat did its due diligence and Google isn't using responses to a customer's form to track those taking the survey. But by definition, they need to hold a copy of that data. Someone, somewhere would. That's how the internet works. I sit on the new Modularity meetings now. I'll be the first to admit I'm not a strong supporter of Modularity. I've been very vocal against it in the past. But I do think that this new team is honestly trying to do the right thing and engage with the community. They aren't trying to push features top-down and they're trying to understand what is wrong and are trying their best to fix it. Part of that is collecting data and stories from people. If we, as a community, push them away now, we'll never see any much-needed improvements to modularity. And tbh, I'm not even sure we're in a place now where we could remove it if we truly needed to, without a lot of pain in the upgrade path. Let's try and be reasonable here. I'm willing to pass along any comments people have individually. Thanks, - Alex > Regards, > Xavier > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > 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@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
Le 07/04/2020 à 12:29, Kevin Kofler a écrit : Adam Williamson wrote: Well. Uh. Clearly it's being provided to *Google*. Indeed. Once again, Fedora is depending on third-party, proprietary, privacy-invading SaaS. Meets exactly my thoughts... This is yet again another disappointing choice of tool. I'm not going to give anything to Google, hence I can _not_ answer the survey. Too bad, there is much to be said about modularity, as the lengthy threads have already shown. Unfortunately, Fedora is drifting more and more away from the Libre Software philosophy that over time made me a Linux-only user and a Fedora packager. At some point, I will have to put my money where my mouth is and find another ship. Yes, I'm bitter... Regards, Xavier ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
Adam Williamson wrote: > Well. Uh. Clearly it's being provided to *Google*. Indeed. Once again, Fedora is depending on third-party, proprietary, privacy-invading SaaS. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Fwd: Modularity Survey
If you have questions or comments about the survey to discuss on the mailing list, use this thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/NAACOHBWTKAZN3IOQKWDNTEHS2BQ6OVJ/ -- Forwarded message - From: Daniel Mach Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:54 AM Subject: Modularity Survey To: Development discussions related to Fedora Hello everyone, On behalf of Red Hat's Modularity team, I'd like to ask you to fill out a survey on Modularity: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScOA97rGONieSOYmlZLsHdkq-EhdePZ4IN3RwOjJKd1F1a9sw/viewform?usp=sf_link Our goal is to use your feedback to improve Modularity, its documentation and hopefully fix any issues you may have. Modularity Survey - The purpose of this survey is to get feedback on Modularity. It is divided into 4 sections: * Information about yourself (optional) * Modularity & you * Problems with Modularity you may have experienced * Glossary review - what do you think the terms mean Privacy / GDPR: * The raw data incl. any personal information you provide will be shared only with Red Hat's Modularity team (approx. 10 people) to evaluate the survey * The raw data will not be provided to anyone else at Red Hat or any 3rd parties * Aggregated (anonymous) results of the survey will be published Thank you for your cooperation. ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Modularity Survey
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 15:52 +0200, Daniel Mach wrote: > Hello everyone, > > On behalf of Red Hat's Modularity team, I'd like to ask you to fill out > a survey on Modularity: > https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScOA97rGONieSOYmlZLsHdkq-EhdePZ4IN3RwOjJKd1F1a9sw/viewform?usp=sf_link > > Our goal is to use your feedback to improve Modularity, its > documentation and hopefully fix any issues you may have. > > > Modularity Survey > - > The purpose of this survey is to get feedback on Modularity. > > It is divided into 4 sections: > * Information about yourself (optional) > * Modularity & you > * Problems with Modularity you may have experienced > * Glossary review - what do you think the terms mean > > Privacy / GDPR: > * The raw data incl. any personal information you provide will be shared > only with Red Hat's Modularity team (approx. 10 people) to evaluate the > survey > * The raw data will not be provided to anyone else at Red Hat or any 3rd > parties Well. Uh. Clearly it's being provided to *Google*. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fwd: Modularity Survey
If you have questions or comments about the survey to discuss on the mailing list, use this thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/NAACOHBWTKAZN3IOQKWDNTEHS2BQ6OVJ/ -- Forwarded message - From: Daniel Mach Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:54 AM Subject: Modularity Survey To: Development discussions related to Fedora Hello everyone, On behalf of Red Hat's Modularity team, I'd like to ask you to fill out a survey on Modularity: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScOA97rGONieSOYmlZLsHdkq-EhdePZ4IN3RwOjJKd1F1a9sw/viewform?usp=sf_link Our goal is to use your feedback to improve Modularity, its documentation and hopefully fix any issues you may have. Modularity Survey - The purpose of this survey is to get feedback on Modularity. It is divided into 4 sections: * Information about yourself (optional) * Modularity & you * Problems with Modularity you may have experienced * Glossary review - what do you think the terms mean Privacy / GDPR: * The raw data incl. any personal information you provide will be shared only with Red Hat's Modularity team (approx. 10 people) to evaluate the survey * The raw data will not be provided to anyone else at Red Hat or any 3rd parties * Aggregated (anonymous) results of the survey will be published Thank you for your cooperation. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis ___ devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fwd: Modularity Survey
If you have questions or comments about the survey to discuss on the mailing list, use this thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/NAACOHBWTKAZN3IOQKWDNTEHS2BQ6OVJ/ -- Forwarded message - From: Daniel Mach Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:54 AM Subject: Modularity Survey To: Development discussions related to Fedora Hello everyone, On behalf of Red Hat's Modularity team, I'd like to ask you to fill out a survey on Modularity: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScOA97rGONieSOYmlZLsHdkq-EhdePZ4IN3RwOjJKd1F1a9sw/viewform?usp=sf_link Our goal is to use your feedback to improve Modularity, its documentation and hopefully fix any issues you may have. Modularity Survey - The purpose of this survey is to get feedback on Modularity. It is divided into 4 sections: * Information about yourself (optional) * Modularity & you * Problems with Modularity you may have experienced * Glossary review - what do you think the terms mean Privacy / GDPR: * The raw data incl. any personal information you provide will be shared only with Red Hat's Modularity team (approx. 10 people) to evaluate the survey * The raw data will not be provided to anyone else at Red Hat or any 3rd parties * Aggregated (anonymous) results of the survey will be published Thank you for your cooperation. ___ devel mailing list -- de...@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis ___ devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
Modularity Survey
Hello everyone, On behalf of Red Hat's Modularity team, I'd like to ask you to fill out a survey on Modularity: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScOA97rGONieSOYmlZLsHdkq-EhdePZ4IN3RwOjJKd1F1a9sw/viewform?usp=sf_link Our goal is to use your feedback to improve Modularity, its documentation and hopefully fix any issues you may have. Modularity Survey - The purpose of this survey is to get feedback on Modularity. It is divided into 4 sections: * Information about yourself (optional) * Modularity & you * Problems with Modularity you may have experienced * Glossary review - what do you think the terms mean Privacy / GDPR: * The raw data incl. any personal information you provide will be shared only with Red Hat's Modularity team (approx. 10 people) to evaluate the survey * The raw data will not be provided to anyone else at Red Hat or any 3rd parties * Aggregated (anonymous) results of the survey will be published Thank you for your cooperation. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
