Enhance Fedora's public-facing presence and outreach. #570

New issue

Open

opened 2026-07-01 11:54:43 +00:00 by pboy · 0 comments

pboy commented

2026-07-01 11:54:43 +00:00

Owner

Summary

Fedora lacks a clear, consistent strategy, which is damaging the project’s overall public image. We need a resource to oversee and coordinate.

Background

Fedora has many individual high-profile initiatives and public presentations. Each one usually produces impressive single results. Unfortunately, however, they are not coordinated; they contradict or even undermine one another, and as a result often come to nothing and remain unnoticed. We need a team to take charge of coordination and alignment, or the Council itself should review the status regularly (every six months, coinciding with release cycles).

Details

There are various examples.

E.g. Lack of contributors.
On our main landing page, we present ourselves exclusively as a download service provider. There is no mention of a dynamic project, nor of a community of contributors with exciting activities that encourage people to at least consider the idea of getting involved as a contributor or active user. But on a side page that doesn’t appear anywhere, we already have a lot of it, at least. With a bit of coordination, we could achieve a great deal with very little effort.

E.g. An opaque jumble of numerous products (editions), the varying purposes of which are confusing

This is particularly awkward on the download page for Workstation and KDE. I have to choose between “The leading Linux desktop” (at this point, at the very latest, those acquainted with the scene will start to laugh) and “The next generation personal desktop”. Apparently, you can’t have both at the same time, and there’s not a single word to explain exactly how they differ. And then there’s the slogan ‘Bootc is the future of Fedora’ (Jeff). So there’s not much to the ‘next generation’ aspect of the KDE desktop; it doesn’t seem worth bothering with.

When it comes to servers, things are a little better – or rather, not quite as bad. But here, too, there is no substantial, comparative overview or guidance on usage. All that remains is confusion.

It might be helpful to organise a panel discussion between the different editions to discuss their mutual benefits and use cases

E.g. Flatpack versus RPM

The desktop editions simply present both side by side without comment. There is no substantive discussion of the criteria for determining which alternative is appropriate. As well as causing confusion amongst users, we are also demotivating our own maintainers, and yet we are surprised that their numbers are steadily declining.

All of this reveals a currently glaring lack of strategic foundations and effective governance.

Summary

This has crept in imperceptibly over the last few years, and we must now tackle it as a matter of urgency before further damage accumulates.

### Summary Fedora lacks a clear, consistent strategy, which is damaging the project’s overall public image. We need a resource to oversee and coordinate. ### Background Fedora has many individual high-profile initiatives and public presentations. Each one usually produces impressive single results. Unfortunately, however, they are not coordinated; they contradict or even undermine one another, and as a result often come to nothing and remain unnoticed. We need a team to take charge of coordination and alignment, or the Council itself should review the status regularly (every six months, coinciding with release cycles). ### Details There are various examples. E.g. **Lack of contributors**. On our [main landing page](https://fedoraproject.org/), we present ourselves exclusively as a download service provider. There is no mention of a dynamic project, nor of a community of contributors with exciting activities that encourage people to at least consider the idea of getting involved as a contributor or active user. But on a [side page that doesn’t appear anywhere](https://fedoraproject.org/start/), we already have a lot of it, at least. With a bit of coordination, we could achieve a great deal with very little effort. E.g. **An opaque jumble of numerous products (editions), the varying purposes of which are confusing** This is particularly awkward on the download page for Workstation and KDE. I have to choose between “The leading Linux desktop” (at this point, at the very latest, those acquainted with the scene will start to laugh) and “The next generation personal desktop”. Apparently, you can’t have both at the same time, and there’s not a single word to explain exactly how they differ. And then there’s the slogan ‘Bootc is the future of Fedora’ (Jeff). So there’s not much to the ‘next generation’ aspect of the KDE desktop; it doesn’t seem worth bothering with. When it comes to servers, things are a little better – or rather, not quite as bad. But here, too, there is no substantial, comparative overview or guidance on usage. All that remains is confusion. It might be helpful to organise a panel discussion between the different editions to discuss their mutual benefits and use cases E.g. **Flatpack versus RPM** The desktop editions simply present both side by side without comment. There is no substantive discussion of the criteria for determining which alternative is appropriate. As well as causing confusion amongst users, we are also demotivating our own maintainers, and yet we are surprised that their numbers are steadily declining. All of this reveals a **currently** glaring lack of strategic foundations and effective governance. ### Summary This has crept in imperceptibly over the last few years, and we must now tackle it as a matter of urgency before further damage accumulates.

pboy added the

needs

triage

label

2026-07-01 11:54:43 +00:00