Community Initiative Proposal: Fedora AI Developer Desktop Initiative #562

Open
opened 2026-04-15 16:10:21 +00:00 by gordonmessmer · 5 comments

Summary

The objective will focus on developer tools, community building, and platforms/packaging

Background

The Fedora AI Developer Desktop Initiative aims to build a thriving community around AI technologies by focusing on three key areas: equipping developers with the necessary platforms, libraries, and frameworks; ensuring users experience painless deployment and usage of AI applications; and establishing a space to showcase the work being done on Fedora, connecting developers with a wider audience.

Details

Proposing this work as a [https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/initiatives/ community initiative] on behalf of the people already engaging in the work and requesting a formal council vote to officially recognise this as one.

Full proposal can be found on the [https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-ai-developer-desktop-objective/184941]. The lead for this initiative is @gmessmer with @jspaleta as the executive sponsor.

Summary

Fedora should provide the necessary platform to support AI development work, supporting all major hardware vendors


Edited by @churchyard -- the link to the proposal on wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Initiatives/AI_Developer_Desktop_Initiative_2026

### Summary The objective will focus on developer tools, community building, and platforms/packaging ### Background The Fedora AI Developer Desktop Initiative aims to build a thriving community around AI technologies by focusing on three key areas: equipping developers with the necessary platforms, libraries, and frameworks; ensuring users experience painless deployment and usage of AI applications; and establishing a space to showcase the work being done on Fedora, connecting developers with a wider audience. ### Details Proposing this work as a [https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/initiatives/ community initiative] on behalf of the people already engaging in the work and requesting a formal council vote to officially recognise this as one. Full proposal can be found on the [https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-ai-developer-desktop-objective/184941]. The lead for this initiative is @gmessmer with @jspaleta as the executive sponsor. ### Summary Fedora should provide the necessary platform to support AI development work, supporting all major hardware vendors ---- Edited by @churchyard -- the link to the proposal on wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Initiatives/AI_Developer_Desktop_Initiative_2026
Owner

For everyone's information.

I've already discussed with @bookwar about having her take over as executive sponsor for the ongoing bootc/atomic initative so that I can take this on as executive sponsor.

For everyone's information. I've already discussed with @bookwar about having her take over as executive sponsor for the ongoing bootc/atomic initative so that I can take this on as executive sponsor.
jflory7 added this to the Fedora Linux 44 milestone 2026-05-06 17:01:13 +00:00
jflory7 added the due date 2026-05-08 2026-05-06 17:01:32 +00:00
Owner

Discussed in 2026-05-06 Fedora Council meeting.


The Council reviewed the Fedora AI Developer Desktop Initiative proposal with @gordonmessmer. Discussion covered naming concerns and hardware enablement, specifically the need to address the LTS kernel feedback in the Fedora Wiki proposal. Recognizing that the technical work is already underway and aiming to provide official guidance and legitimacy, the Council voted to approve the initiative. The approval is pending a short lazy consensus period ending on Friday, May 8th to accommodate absent Council members during the meeting.

Follow-up Items

Next Steps: Update the wiki proposal to address the LTS kernel feedback. Wait for the lazy consensus period to close on Friday. If fully approved, onboard the new initiative lead to the Council.

Owners: @jflory7 (ticket updates, Council onboarding), @gordonmessmer and @jspaleta (recurring 1:1 syncs).

Decisions

!agreed +6/0/-0 — The Fedora Council approves the AI Developer Desktop Initiative as a 12-month Initiative, led by @gordonmessmer and sponsored by @jspaleta. On the basis of our documented lazy consensus voting model, the decision will be ratified and final by Friday, 8 May in the ticket.

_Discussed in [2026-05-06 Fedora Council meeting](https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-council-meeting-2026-05-06-innovation-lifecycle-policy-f44-interviews-and-ai-desktop/190575)_. --- The Council reviewed the Fedora AI Developer Desktop Initiative proposal with @gordonmessmer. Discussion covered naming concerns and hardware enablement, specifically the need to address the LTS kernel feedback in the Fedora Wiki proposal. Recognizing that the technical work is already underway and aiming to provide official guidance and legitimacy, the Council voted to approve the initiative. The approval is pending a short lazy consensus period ending on Friday, May 8th to accommodate absent Council members during the meeting. ## Follow-up Items **Next Steps**: Update the wiki proposal to address the LTS kernel feedback. Wait for the lazy consensus period to close on Friday. If fully approved, onboard the new initiative lead to the Council. **Owners**: @jflory7 (ticket updates, Council onboarding), @gordonmessmer and @jspaleta (recurring 1:1 syncs). ## Decisions **!agreed +6/0/-0 — The Fedora Council approves the AI Developer Desktop Initiative as a 12-month Initiative, led by @gordonmessmer and sponsored by @jspaleta. On the basis of our documented lazy consensus voting model, the decision will be ratified and final by Friday, 8 May in the ticket.**
Owner

Changing my vote to -1.

While I strongly support leveraging AI to establish Fedora as a leading platform, completely rearchitecting our kernel strategy is a massive structural shift. It requires explicit alignment with our legal and engineering stakeholders before we commit the project to this path.

Based on recent public and private feedback, we do not yet have the necessary consensus to proceed. Specifically, feedback from Fedora kernel subject-matter experts has not been sufficiently integrated into the current plan. Furthermore, impending developments, such as the NVIDIA Nova driver work expected in late 2026, introduce technical and legal complexities that must be vetted before we finalize an initiative of this scope.

To lead effectively in this space, we must ensure our technical roadmap is built on solid, documented agreement rather than rushed timelines.

To resolve my -1 block, the following items must be addressed:

  1. SME Integration: Formally incorporate the documented feedback from Fedora kernel subject-matter experts into the proposal to ensure the architecture is sound.
  2. Logic Model: Provide a standardized Logic Model for this Initiative (as required for past Initiatives) to clearly define inputs, outputs, and long-term maintenance owners. I am happy to provide templates for this asynchronously via Matrix or Slack.

I am casting this vote to ensure we build a structurally sustainable initiative that succeeds without alienating or burning out our core experts. I look forward to reviewing the next iteration once these safeguards are in place.

Changing my vote to **-1**. While I strongly support leveraging AI to establish Fedora as a leading platform, completely rearchitecting our kernel strategy is a massive structural shift. It requires explicit alignment with our legal and engineering stakeholders before we commit the project to this path. Based on recent public and private feedback, we do not yet have the necessary consensus to proceed. Specifically, feedback from Fedora kernel subject-matter experts has not been sufficiently integrated into the current plan. Furthermore, impending developments, such as the NVIDIA Nova driver work expected in late 2026, introduce technical and legal complexities that must be vetted before we finalize an initiative of this scope. To lead effectively in this space, we must ensure our technical roadmap is built on solid, documented agreement rather than rushed timelines. To resolve my -1 block, the following items must be addressed: 1. **SME Integration:** Formally incorporate the documented feedback from Fedora kernel subject-matter experts into the proposal to ensure the architecture is sound. 2. **Logic Model:** Provide a standardized Logic Model for this Initiative (as required for past Initiatives) to clearly define inputs, outputs, and long-term maintenance owners. I am happy to provide templates for this asynchronously via Matrix or Slack. I am casting this vote to ensure we build a structurally sustainable initiative that succeeds without alienating or burning out our core experts. I look forward to reviewing the next iteration once these safeguards are in place.
pbokoc modified the due date from 2026-05-08 to 2026-05-12 2026-05-10 18:52:37 +00:00
pbokoc modified the due date from 2026-05-12 to 2026-05-08 2026-05-10 18:52:51 +00:00
jflory7 modified the due date from 2026-05-08 to 2026-05-22 2026-05-11 10:34:08 +00:00
Owner

Changed the due date to 22 May 2026, since per our documented decision-making process, this would be an escalation point if the Council is in a deadlock. I remain optimistic that we can resolve this without a deadlock and a FPL override.

Changed the due date to 22 May 2026, since per our [documented decision-making process](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/#decisions), this would be an escalation point if the Council is in a deadlock. I remain optimistic that we can resolve this without a deadlock and a FPL override.
Owner

Changing my vote to -1.

I fear that the feedback (that was unfortunately received after the initial vote) indicates that the Fedora community is not supportive of this initiative as is. As one of the elected representatives, I feel I need to listen to that feedback and try to better understand it before I can approve this with a clear conscience.

My original assumption was that this proposal, being only additive in its nature, would not be controversial. I now see that I was wrong about that. I will reread the feedback and work with the relevant parties to help reshape the proposal so it has the community's support, if possible.

Changing my vote to -1. I fear that the feedback (that was unfortunately received after the initial vote) indicates that the Fedora community is not supportive of this initiative as is. As one of the elected representatives, I feel I need to listen to that feedback and try to better understand it before I can approve this with a clear conscience. My original assumption was that this proposal, being only *additive* in its nature, would not be controversial. I now see that I was wrong about that. I will reread the feedback and work with the relevant parties to help reshape the proposal so it has the community's support, if possible.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No assignees
4 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

2026-05-22

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
council/tickets#562
No description provided.