Fedora grapples with change [LWN.net]
LWN<br>.net<br>News from the source
Content Weekly Edition<br>Archives<br>Search<br>Kernel<br>Security<br>Events calendar<br>Unread comments
LWN FAQ<br>Write for us
User:<br>Password: |
Log in /<br>Subscribe /<br>Register
Fedora grapples with change
[LWN subscriber-only content]
Welcome to LWN.net
The following subscription-only content has been made available to you<br>by an LWN subscriber. Thousands of subscribers depend on LWN for the<br>best news from the Linux and free software communities. If you enjoy this<br>article, please consider subscribing to LWN. Thank you<br>for visiting LWN.net!
By Joe Brockmeier<br>July 20, 2026
The Fedora Project is known for,<br>among other things, having a well-defined set of processes for just about<br>everything. It has extensive packaging<br>guidelines that deal with the complexities of creating RPMs to install<br>software, as well as processes for managing the legal questions that<br>arise around shipping software. Fedora also has a well-defined change<br>process for dealing with self-contained technical changes as well as major<br>changes to the distribution, and other issues as they arise. At the moment,<br>though, the project seems to be experiencing a sort of midlife crisis as it<br>re-examines several of its change processes at once to determine if they are<br>still effective.
Evolution
As a vendor-sponsored project, Fedora has always had to walk a difficult path<br>in serving its users, contributor community, and corporate masters; what makes<br>one party the happiest may be a source of angst for another. Red Hat's desire to trial technologies in Fedora does not always spark joy among<br>contributors and users. Volunteer contributors may want to push ideas that are of little interest to Red<br>Hat (at least at the time), or may even conflict with its choices. For<br>example, Fedora's choice of Btrfs as the<br>default filesystem contrasts with Red Hat's decision not to support it in Red<br>Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).
Users want easy access to problematic software, such as patent-encumbered games or codecs, but shipping those could<br>create expensive legal headaches for Red Hat. Attempts to make Fedora more<br>user-friendly, say by setting<br>the default for the $EDITOR environment variable to GNU nano, may<br>not please some developers.
Fedora had little in the way of governance or policy when the project launched in 2003 as a kind of<br>replacement for Red Hat<br>Linux. Early on, Red Hat entertained the idea of creating a "Fedora<br>Foundation" that would give the project some independence, and then pulled back<br>from that in 2006. Some of the mechanisms that were put in place in<br>anticipation of the foundation, such as a Fedora Board and Fedora Extras<br>Steering Committee, evolved into the Fedora Council and Fedora Engineering Steering<br>Committee (FESCo) over time.
There have been a number of times when there was friction between corporate<br>and community priorities; but the project has more or less made it work over the<br>years. It has done this by discussing the problems, finding some kind of<br>consensus, documenting the policies that are hammered out along the way, and<br>then using them for new decisions. See, for example, Tom Callaway's overview of<br>how Fedora's legal policies were<br>developed. Over the years, Fedora's governance and policies have become<br>something of a model for other open-source projects.
The project's governance has had one constant: Red Hat has the final say. As<br>former Fedora Project Leader (FPL) Max Spevack noted when Red Hat dumped the idea<br>of an independent foundation:
Red Hat *must* maintain a certain amount of control over Fedora decisions,<br>because Red Hat's business model *depends* upon Fedora. Red Hat contributes<br>millions of dollars in staff and resources to the success of Fedora, and Red Hat<br>also accepts all of the legal risk for Fedora. Therefore, Red Hat will<br>sometimes need to make tough decisions about Fedora. We won't do it often, and<br>when we do, we will discuss the rationale behind such decisions as openly as we<br>can.
Just because Red Hat has power over Fedora does not mean that the company<br>wants to use it, he said. Nor did it want to make all the important decisions<br>about Fedora: effective community-driven decision making would be a direct<br>measure of Fedora's success. "We aim to set the standard for open source<br>innovation. A truly open Fedora Project is what makes that possible."
Sandbox
In the past year or so, though, the project's processes that have worked<br>until now seem to be coming into question more and more often: usually when they<br>seem to butt up against Red Hat's priorities. For example, last year's deliberation on Fedora's AI-assisted<br>contribution policy that showed a disconnect between Red Hat's desire to<br>experiment with AI in Fedora and contributors who wanted Fedora's policy to be<br>much less friendly to AI.
In March, current FPL Jef Spaleta proposed a<br>technology-innovation-lifecycle process he dubbed the "Fedora Sandbox" for<br>"experimental features, components, output, process, or...