Recently, Fedora infrastructure requested everyone change their password and upload a new SSH public key. We gave folks almost 2 months to make the change. I'd just like to note here the reactions we had, divided into 4 'groups' of users. Of course some people were between two of these groups or some probably had slightly different reactions, but this is what my reading of the feedback leads me to:

1. Group one sees the announcement, skims it, goes and changes their password, generates and uploads a new ssh key, goes back to what they were doing.
2. Group two sees the announcement, reads it, reads the links off it. Adjusts their firewall, checks their backups, re-enables selinux or applies updates, then changes their password and uploads a new key
3. Group three sees the announcement. Complains that their private ssh key is safe and always has been, and they know all about passwords and ssh and encryption and this change is unneeded.
4. Group four doesn't even see the announcement. They are no longer involved, too busy to read it, or just don't care

Group one spends about 5 minutes. The advantage to Fedora Infrastructure isn't great here, but they do have a new password that meets the guidelines and a new ssh key in case they were careless with the old one. Of course they didn't learn much, so they could be careless with the new one as well. Group two are the very people we are trying to reach most, and here's the most advantage to this plan. These people will learn how to improve their security some, how better to handle their ssh private keys and hopefully prevent compromise on their personal machines. They may spend a good deal of time following the links and learning about best practices, but it's all time well spent. Group three are the vocal minority. While they already know best practices and keep their ssh private keys safe, they don't realize we have any way of telling them apart from group 4 (below). Time spent here is large for both them and Infrastructure folks, but advantage is low because it amounts to "I know I am fine and shouldn't have to do this" vs "We have no way of knowing that". There are likely a less vocal subset of these folks that show up in Group one (just do it and grumble and move on). Group four is another group where there is good advantage for infrastructure. These are folks that are gone, don't pay attention to their Fedora work, or are too busy to spend a few minutes on it. Packages with these folks as maintainers would be better off being orphaned and reassigned to people who use and care for them. Sysadmin groups with these folks are better off not having someone who they think are involved, but really doesn't have time to be. So, in the end I think there is still good advantage to us having done this. I hope the folks in group two are large and learn from our documents and best practices. I hope the people in group three realize that this isn't just about them, it's about the community, and I hope pruning the people from group four helps improve the health and activity of our community. Finally, as a side note, the deadline was last night, but we are still assessing exactly how we want to mark inactive folks who haven't yet changed their password and uploaded a new key. You still have time to go do it now. ;)