When viewing the rendered version of the page (https://pagure.io/fork/zbyszek/copr/copr/blob/allowed-content/f/doc/user_documentation.rst), the letters are changed to numbers, which makes the reference about kernel modules to "point b. above" a bit confusing. It should be "point 2 above".

Thanks. Updated.

Restricting this clause to just the Fedora Project Code of Conduct seems to potentially be going to far. Can we find language that says something to the effective "violates any Fedora Project rules or guidelines other than the Fedora Packaging Guidelines" ?

Can you be more specific? For example, there are Fedora Update Guidelines, which should not IMO apply either. Then there are guidelines for retiring and orphaning packages. And probably others I'm not aware of. But none of them meaningfully apply to packages in copr.

I would suggest:

e. violates any rules or guidelines of the Fedora Project - except a Packaging Guidelines; or

Because Fedora has more rules and more guidelines. And scratching all of them would require enumerating them first and go through each of them. That would be a dirty job.

I concur with this one.

So... we find it hard to enumerate the guidelines. I get that. But the proposed answer essentially tells coprs users to figure out the answer for themselves. There's some unspecified list of sets of guidelines and people are supposed to agree to follow all of them.

Let's place ourselves in the role of a potential copr user asking themselves what guidelines apply: EPEL guidelines — they would apply under @msuchy's proposed wording, unless we also consider them Packaging Guidelines, but the capitalized form means the one specific document, so they probably apply, badge submission guidelines — hard to say, Ambassador reimbursement form submission guidelines — hard to say, Fedora Documentation Style Guide — ???, etc.

copr is supposed to be useful for people who are not core Fedora contributors, and this lack of specificity is a hurdle. "Private" users most likely will ignore those questions, but I can easily image a "corporate" user considering using copr on their work time and finding this a problem.

You're right that our list of policies is hard to find. This is also not going to be solved soon, but it is something the Council amongst others worries about. I don't think this problem is new or unique to this particular instance. Therefore, I don't think we should block on this and instead should just state which policy is excepted.

I merged the second part of your commit - no need to block that.

About the first part, I tried https://pagure.io/copr/copr/pull-request/569

Thanks. I'm happy with https://pagure.io/copr/copr/c/7be4e61b841b6237d410632322cc3778326f8db7 — this solves my issue. I'd prefer to have a positive list of guideline documents that need to be followed, but I see that is impossible to achieve currently, so just not saying anything works will have to be good enough.