Dalto made a major point. Michael, you just dismiss it if people have a different opinion. The best they can get is generalized phrases that do not tell much (“make Fedora the major distribution”, which was never set in contrast/context to your proposal, and at this point, this phrase can be questioned given the developments that imho already created damage to the community and its trust). Alternatively, others’ thoughts are ignored. You are also very selective to capture only scenarios and points that support your opinion (you ignore other scenarios/points, including when it comes to protect data at stages that do not serve your proposal). Your elaborations already brought personal data together but then you limited the scenarios so that you do not need to care.
What is underlying to your arguments is that you are right and if people disagree, then they have not yet understood. This can be seen already already as problematic and questions if you should process such people’s data.
Data gathering is something that has to be taken seriously - it contains many critical and complex tasks, always. You should not get data that is not necessary. However, you want to get data, but so far without idea what data or for what explicitly.
Usually, issues like that shall start with a problem. Then, you check out what you need to solve a problem. Specific data can be a potential solution. Then, you check out if and possibly, how to get that data.
However, you first want to get data, then you want to find out which data and thus what problem to solve with it: sounds a little like “first of all, just get data, then let’s think for what we need it”. This already indicates minor respect of the responsibility when it comes to data processing.
I am not sure that at this point if the trust can be recovered tbh.