The link is misleading.
It's driven by Red Hat's Software Management team nowadays:
* Daniel Mach dmach@redhat.com - modularity product owner and tech lead
* Jaroslav Mracek jmracek@redhat.com - responsible for modularity in DNF
* Martin Curlej mcurlej@redhat.com - write something about yourself :)

Shouldn't we move this to a standalone section with stakeholders?
It's not just these groups, there were changes in DNF, Anaconda, Pulp and many other tools.

This link is useless. There's no modularity component. We should also prepopulate some fields for the reporters.
I'd document that due to lack of better options, users should report bugs on DNF and clearly indicate that it's a modularity bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&component=dnf&short_desc=[modularity]%20

This link is simply wrong, we're not watching the pagure PRs that much.
It's better to direct people to bugzilla (the same link as above):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&component=dnf&short_desc=[modularity]%20

This whole section needs a massive rewrite.
I'd remove all of it and ask for filing bugs and contacting me (dmach) if they want to be involved in modularity.
I don't think it makes sense to come up with any rules or workflows now.
We should do it when there are real contributors outside Red Hat involved.
Using bugzilla as the collaboration and bug tracking tool should be good enough for now.

This whole page needs rewrite, but I think we should do it in the next iterations.
Nothing we should work on now, we will improve it after we process the survey results.

product=Fedora%20Modules