|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

The state of Fedora in 2026

By Joe Brockmeier
June 16, 2026

Flock

On June 15 at Fedora's Flock conference, held in Prague, Fedora Project Leader (FPL) Jef Spaleta delivered a short "State of Fedora" keynote that provided a bit of insight into the status of the project. Topics included the overall growth for Fedora usage, ways to increase contributions, and an alarming decline in the number of active packagers working on the project.

I did not attend Flock this year but I did watch the live stream; the unedited video is available now, and edited videos should be published soon. Spaleta's slides are not yet available, but are expected to be posted to the session page at any time.

Good, bad, weird

Spaleta is now in his second year as FPL; he began the talk by alluding to that fact, and commented that it still felt weird to be called the FPL. He said he would show "some good things, bad things, and a weird thing" related to the state of Fedora.

Fedora usage fell into the "good" category. Overall, Fedora usage continues to climb; he showed a slide that tracked the number of systems that were "seen" for each of Fedora's variants (22 in all). The graph indicated that almost all of the variants showed increasing usage over time; Spaleta said that there had been almost one million systems checking in, according to the "Count Me" system, in the past week. That meant a nine percent increase in the last year. This article on the Fedora Magazine blog explains how Fedora's tracking system works, as well as how to disable it if one does not wish to be counted.

Fedora KDE Plasma, which was recently promoted from a Fedora Spin to a full edition, showed "super year-over-year growth", he said. In the past week, it had more than 158,000 systems checking in, for more than 120% growth compared to last year. He speculated that was due to its promotion but he couldn't be sure.

Fedora Workstation, the project's GNOME-based edition, also showed year-over-year growth, but of a more modest sort. In the past week, the project had tracked about 297,000 systems, or 18.8% growth in the past year. Fedora counted about 167,000 image-based systems in the last week, which includes all of its Atomic Desktops as well as Fedora CoreOS. Spaleta's chart showed a 30.5% increase in usage from last year. The bulk of that growth, he said, is attributed to CoreOS; the project identified about 146,000 live CoreOS systems in the past week.

The "weird" lies in the active system reports for the Cloud edition. While most of the graphs Spaleta displayed showed a consistent upward trend, the Cloud graph was closer to spiky abstract art than a coherent usage pattern. All told, if the collected statistics are accurate, there were nearly 65% fewer systems active—about 75,000—in the past week than a year ago. He said that it had indicated a number of systems had shown up "instantly as 25 weeks old", and that he didn't understand the graph at all.

He also covered "Fedora visitors": that is, Fedora-based distributions, such Bazzite from the Universal Blue project and the Asahi Remix, which are tracked in the Count Me statistics as well. There were about 97,000 visitor systems counted in the past week, for a year-over-year growth of more than 210%. Spaleta said that those distributions are part of Fedora's larger ecosystem, "and when they do well, we do well. I would like to find ways to bring them closer to us".

Disappearing packagers

"Here's where we get to the not-so-great part", Spaleta said while displaying a graph (reproduced below) that tracked Fedora packagers by month in 2020, 2023, and 2026 so far. The graph indicates some decline throughout 2020, a steeper decline in 2023, and even steeper decline in 2026. "It's only four months, but it's a pretty straight line, that is concerning.".

[Year-over-Year Package Committers by Month]

At the beginning of 2020 there were more than 420 package committers, and the year closed with slightly fewer packagers. In 2023, Fedora had about 410 packagers at the beginning of the year, but ended with fewer than 340. It began this year with about 350, and is now at about 325 packagers.

He said he was unsure what the reasons were for the decline, or exactly how to solve it. "It could be that we need to double down on outreach, or the new normal for us may be that we need to do more with less." Spaleta said it may be that there is a need to automate more work, and that packaging was less interesting to newer contributors. He thought that it might be a "generational switchover" but he did not want to just throw darts at the problem by guessing. "I want to solve the problem".

He was not sure what the solution could be, but he did have some thoughts. "I'm the FPL, I can't not have thoughts on this." Unfortunately, he said, he would share his thoughts with the audience. Spaleta said that Fedora needed to modernize its contributor experience. The transition from Fedora's homegrown Pagure collaboration platform to Fedora Forge, which is based on the Forgejo GitHub-like "software forge", will be "a big leap forward" for the project in that regard by standardizing on workflows people expect for open-source development.

In addition, Spaleta said that Fedora needed to modernize how its governance works, and improve its outreach to new contributors in a more programmatic way. "We don't necessarily have the resources to do that right now. We need to expand resources." He noted that there is a group looking into a way to take in donations, "to broaden support beyond what Red Hat can do with its budget". The council is hoping to do an experiment with Open Collective, he said, and work on creating a framework to rebuild Fedora's global outreach program. LWN covered early discussion about this in March 2026.

He also complained that Fedora tends to "frontload a lot of discussion and get things perfect" before trying experiments. He said he didn't want to use the word "bikeshedding" but then added "it's bikeshedding": to curb that, Spaleta has proposed an innovation lifecycle process that was inspired by the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) Sandbox. The idea behind the proposal is to have a "sandbox" for innovations that are "too big" for Fedora's usual change process.

He said that an innovation process was necessary at this stage, especially now that multiple vendors depend on Fedora; AWS and Microsoft now have Fedora-based Linux distributions (Amazon Linux and Azure Linux, respectively). Spaleta has submitted the proposal to the council, and there is a plan to have a formal discussion and decision on it after Flock.

Hummingbird

He also briefly mentioned Fedora Hummingbird. Spaleta said it was an "innovative approach to build an operating system" that relies on automation; it would have been an obvious fit for the innovation sandbox, but the sandbox did not exist yet.

Hummingbird, which is described as a container-based, rolling Fedora distribution, has been a bit controversial; not the idea itself, necessarily, but the way it was rolled out. The idea had been raised by Scott McCarty on the Fedora development list at the end of April. It was received with interest, and some confusion, about how it would differ from other Fedora variants. McCarty said that the plan was to bring Hummingbird in under the innovation lifecycle proposal, and said in his last message on the subject on May 1 that he was looking forward to more discussions about Hummingbird.

Those discussions did not happen, and Hummingbird was not formally proposed to the project via a public ticket. Instead, a request was submitted to the council privately to approve the usage of the Fedora trademark. The council voted in favor of this in secret in order to expedite the process so it could be announced during Red Hat Summit in May as an official Fedora initiative.

Q&A

The first question from the audience was about the decline in packager contributions; an attendee wanted to know what the split was like between Red Hat employees and non-Red Hat employees. Spaleta said that it was a good question, but he was unable to answer it; the graph had been generated the day before, and he had not had time to dig into more detail.

Another attendee questioned the theory that the decline was due to "generational switchover" since no one at Flock looked as if they were close to retirement. Spaleta responded that getting a "why" out of data is very difficult. "We'd need to reach out to people who've stopped and ask them." He thought that part of the problem in attracting new contributors was that "the goalposts have creeped". What Fedora considers high-quality now is a higher bar than in the early days of the project. "We have to have space for people who are doing skills development." He also said that the sandbox process would be good to allow contributors to do things "that are not good" and provide an opportunity to feel like part of the project while improving their skills. With that, the session ran out of time.


Index entries for this article
ConferenceFlock/2026


to post comments

Notably absent: Self-reflection?

Posted Jun 16, 2026 17:40 UTC (Tue) by hailfinger (subscriber, #76962) [Link] (8 responses)

Either the article missed it, or the "not-so-great part" really didn't include any reflection on how people might perceive Fedora.

- Absent in the discussion: https://lwn.net/Articles/1071949/ "Friction in Fedora over AI developer desktop initiative"

- Odd: "Hummingbird [...] The council voted in favor of this in secret in order to expedite the process"

- Not understanding historical references to literature: https://lwn.net/Articles/1062579/ which uses the phrase "a modest proposal" in a non-satirical way (the original text from Jonathan Swift satirically suggested that poor people should sell their children to the rich so the rich could then eat those children, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal )

- A general attitude by the FPL that only the FPL may speculate without data, others will have to prove their position (see https://lwn.net/Articles/1071949/ and others)

This reminds me of DNS.

It's not DNS
There's no way it's DNS
It was DNS

Notably absent: Self-reflection?

Posted Jun 16, 2026 21:22 UTC (Tue) by jirisl2 (subscriber, #184573) [Link] (4 responses)

Fedora has the worst FPL in history. I was at Flock and, of course, nothing was said about it.

He didn’t say anything about the Fedora AI initiative and the impact it has had on contributors; he didn’t say anything about how Hummingbird was approved in secret and how that affects the project’s reputation.

People are talking amongst themselves in private about how they feel about it; basically, they feel they have a new manager who thinks he’s the most important person in the world. Most don’t have the courage to say it straight out, as Fernando did. But it’s also true that most of them work at Red Hat and will feel under pressure.

It is so sad.

Notably absent: Self-reflection?

Posted Jun 18, 2026 8:56 UTC (Thu) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link] (1 responses)

For the non-Red Hatters involved in Fedora - we are always aware the project is chiefly driven by Red Hat, sometimes to our frustration - it's really hard to fund initiatives because Fedora is not an independent foundation for instance, something belatedly being addressed now, but I should note that this article does not note most of the driver of that initiative are the community contributors.

That being said, the previous FPL (between recency bias and that Matthew served for such a long time and it coincides with my more active contribution period anyway, I won't mention the earlier ones) is much better at having this sounds like a dialog. Under the current incumbent - indeed, it feels like working for someone, but we're not paid...

Notably absent: Self-reflection?

Posted Jun 24, 2026 13:41 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

Speaking of community funding....
There's been a quiet community effort now for years to try to build a structure where its possible for community to self-fund interests. It's mostly been a matrix channel discussion, is my understanding. I wish I could point you to a good mailinglist or forum thread about the organizational work this group has been doing but I can't. An archived public discussion would have helped me come up to speed faster as part of the role change.

Once I was up to speed, I made it a point to bring the idea forward for discussion at the Council face to face as a strategic agenda item. We captured a summary of that discussion in the daily summaries. I think it was the first time the Council face-2-face have had daily discussion summaries. Hopefully those daily summaries were useful for the community. It felt useful to do the end of day summary work when we were doing it. And its useful right now, because I can point to them as an artifact.

https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-council-202...

There is also recorded video summary of the council f2f for the community...where I talk about the strategic nature of the community resourcing question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIszwc2YWM&t=800s

At Flock last week the FCA and I were asked to attend a face 2 face with the community group who have been working the problem and we gave that group a summary of Council's intent to run an experiment making use of open collective, so Council can gain some experience with the platform and use that experiment as a way to have a public discussion about what we want to achieve as a strategic goal, and take feedback that leads towards a durable process we can grow. Those of us in the room, last week, seemed to be on the same page as we left the meeting. Council is probably going a little slower than they want, but I'm trying to get traction on this as a strategic need and more importantly starting to talk about this more publicly.

-jef

Notably absent: Self-reflection?

Posted Jun 18, 2026 20:38 UTC (Thu) by seyman (subscriber, #1172) [Link]

> Fedora has the worst FPL in history.

This is quite harsh. As a packager in Fedora, the things that make me want to quit are things that started or occurred under Matt's leadership, not Jef's.

Notably absent: Self-reflection?

Posted Jun 23, 2026 16:57 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

good morning.

The state of Fedora talk was a lead-in into a panel discussion with the entire Fedora Council, followed by a FESCo panel discussion, followed by a keynote about Hummingbird.

I would encourage you to watch the Council panel discussion, which directly follows the state of Fedora.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3Dt-2s82nk&t=6285s

That entire 9 hour video covers a lot of ground..
State of Fedora
Council Panel
FESCo Panel
Hummingbird keynote
Packit CI
and later the talk on project stewardship in the scope of the CRA legislation.

The end of the Hummingbird talk and the Q&A is particularly interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3Dt-2s82nk&t=16404s

Unfortunately, the Sunday workshops for Packit, Hummingbird, and the CRA stewardship were not recorded. We might need to figure out if we can also record the workshops in a useful manner next time.

I do find it interesting that no one in attendance took the opportunity to ask questions of Council collectively about the AI desktop initiative process nor the question about Council's trademark decision making over Hummingbird. I was fully expecting those questions, and they didn't happen.

I'm happy to talk openingly about Council related things, but I want to do so in a context where other Council members can do so as well, from their perspective. That in-person panel discussion was probably the best available context for Council members to be asked to opine. If that panel situation is not sufficient opportunity, then we have to work on that and try to create additional opportunities for Council members to take and answer questions from the community in a structured way more frequently.

-jef

Notably absent: Self-reflection?

Posted Jun 17, 2026 11:21 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> Not understanding historical references to literature: https://lwn.net/Articles/1062579/ which uses the phrase "a modest proposal" in a non-satirical way

How does this matter compared to your other points? Seems to just undermine and diminish the rest...

Notably absent: Self-reflection?

Posted Jun 17, 2026 12:25 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> - Odd: "Hummingbird [...] The council voted in favor of this in secret in order to expedite the process"

From the article - "Instead, a request was submitted to the council privately to approve the usage of the Fedora trademark."

For an organisation that does most things publicly ... but who owns the trademarks? I get your point about "How people might perceive Fedora", but I'm also acutely aware how some (usually the most voluble) people just seem totally impervious to facts.

As somebody with no real interest whatsoever in the Fedora/RH ecosystem, I'm just an observer, and if Fedora are using this as a way of keeping IBM's obsession with AI out of mainstream Fedora, good luck to them.

AI is a good servant, but too many people seem to want to make it their master. I'm sick of AI offering to do things for me - "Let me summarise this document for you!" when I'm an analyst and need to dig into the detail! If other people like it, good luck to them, just don't foist it on everybody else. Hummingbird doesn't appear to be proper Fedora, let's hope it becomes a nectar-trap for all the AI-moths :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Notably absent: Self-reflection?

Posted Jun 17, 2026 23:04 UTC (Wed) by jirisl2 (subscriber, #184573) [Link]

They are pushing AI everywhere, Hummingbird is just another step. The community was able to stop the Fedora AI desktop for now although it has been made clear by the FPL that it is going to happen.

Council is again full Red Hat, let's see if they are not too afraid to speak up and push back.

No surprise here

Posted Jun 17, 2026 8:08 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (10 responses)

It would be quite surprising that after a decade of promoting “alternative” deployment methods to please internal @rh groups that came from non-Linux horizons with non-Linux habits the packager situation would be healthy.

High time for Fedora to remember that its value proposition is packages produced by packagers and not all the other stuff that takes the limelight and silently depends on the packages that are publicly and continuously disparaged. Fedora leaders did not manage to replace packages but they did manage to discourage packagers.

No surprise here

Posted Jun 17, 2026 9:46 UTC (Wed) by aragilar (subscriber, #122569) [Link] (5 responses)

I'd be curious how many of said packagers are employed by Red Hat (and does that explain the graph). It's also not clear how many new packagers there are, and if there are patterns to contribution. It would be also interesting to see when the decline started. Churning tooling/systems can't be good for keeping people around.

No surprise here

Posted Jun 18, 2026 7:22 UTC (Thu) by taladar (subscriber, #68407) [Link] (3 responses)

I wonder if there is some connection to that whole Centos discontinuation/Centos Stream issue and the related birth of Alma and Rocky. There might be some people who just left the Red Hat ecosystem altogether over that and some who might have taken up other tasks than packaging in those new distros perhaps if they stayed that were previously unnecessary.

No surprise here

Posted Jun 18, 2026 11:28 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (2 responses)

The core reason is loss of focus and chasing fads. Who wants to toil so others reap the benefits? The excellent quote of the week (read it if full not just lwn’s extracts) applies as-is, just replace browser with packages and packagers.

No surprise here

Posted Jun 18, 2026 11:39 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

Some extracts :

> If you're working here, you're one of the fortunate […] It is our obligation to listen to the people who aren't lucky enough to get paid. The folk out there are our community. They're our peers. They are the ones who trust that we will continue to work for them, because if not, they'll find someone else who will.

> I'm willing to say that if you announce a feature or function and the number doesn't go up past the initial novelty bump, that's a pretty solid indicator that you guessed wrong […] Folk are telling you, they're just not doing it directly in a focus group.

> remember that your customers are not your fans. They barely tolerate you. You have to work every day to convince them to stick around. That's not being negative, that's being realistic. Humility drives improvement and forces you to be more critical about radical changes

No surprise here

Posted Jun 18, 2026 12:20 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

Sorry, correct quote link

No surprise here

Posted Jun 24, 2026 15:48 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

All good questions.
In the data workgroup workshop on Sunday I specifically asked the lead for the effort to add a repo so we can start putting in well formed questions to ask from the available data about historic contributor activity.

https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fdwg/analysis-requests

I owe him the promised 70 or so questions I'd like to try to answer.

I don't want to lose track of the questions.

I'm trying real hard not to fall into the trap of merely valuing what we can measure. I want to try that if we spin up analytics we are attempting to measure what we value. Putting together well reasoned questions we can ask the data using the new tools this community group has created and _why_ we want to ask those questions should help avoid the trap.

That being said, I don't think the existing data source can help us identify employer associations. Fedora as a project may need to craft a vendor engagement strategy that includes a mechanism to help ensure we can track that. Now that Microsoft Azure, among other downstreams, is Fedora based there's more reason to track vendor employees activity in the project.

the rate of new packager activity we might be able to get from the data and its definitely an important question.
That is different question than the rate at which new packagers ae added into the packager group and are acting as co-maintainers. It could be the project is adding packagers, but they arent showing up in the activity logs. I don't know yet. There are so many questions we can try to answer with these tools now.

-jef

Downstream

Posted Jun 18, 2026 13:51 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (3 responses)

> High time for Fedora to remember that its value proposition is packages produced by packagers and not all the other stuff that takes the limelight and silently depends on the packages that are publicly and continuously disparaged. Fedora leaders did not manage to replace packages but they did manage to discourage packagers.

I feel like Ubuntu approaches this issue the other way round, which seems to work much better. That is: add all the proprietary software, drivers, fads, filesystems, AI and everything else you think your customers want _on top_ of the community core (Debian). Do contribute to the community core but keep hot-button "interferences" to a minimum. Fork some components when needed. Don't when you can upstream changes.

I'm not saying everything is perfect in Ubuntu-land, far from it. But that basic approach/angle looks much more sound. In fact, this "downstream" approach is is how the vast majority of commercial products use open-source in general, not just Linux distributions.

When Ubuntu needs to experiment with something new, they don't need to design a "new innovation cycle" or some fancy new "sandbox process". They just go and do it - like any company using open-source does. Zero "bikeshedding" getting in the way. Then, if and only if the experiment was successful, they can consider submitting parts of it upstream and let the bikeshedding start. But now the proposition has been battle-hardened first.

I realize this downstream approach does not apply well to infrastructure changes like Forgejo but it does seem to apply to pretty much everything else. Even with Forgejo: has IBM already been using it in anger internally?

The puzzling thing is: Fedora seems to already supports all kinds of spins, variants and what not. So why can't IBM just leverage that existing "downstream" infrastructure instead of upsetting non-IBM contributors and driving some to leave?

Pretending I'm an IBM customer, where can I download the IBM-stamped Fedora spin with all the AI and proprietary goodies that IBM believes I want? Does IBM not want my money? I'm aware RedHat is also a distro that I can buy but I'm not a datacenter sysadmin. I'm a software developer who wants the cutting edge stuff. I like Ubuntu but I find them a bit slow with AI and what not.

Downstream

Posted Jun 21, 2026 2:21 UTC (Sun) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (2 responses)

> When Ubuntu needs to experiment with something new, they don't need to design a "new innovation cycle" or some fancy new "sandbox process". They just go and do it - like any company using open-source does. Zero "bikeshedding" getting in the way. Then, if and only if the experiment was successful, they can consider submitting parts of it upstream and let the bikeshedding start. But now the proposition has been battle-hardened first.

Yeah…but how often have they ended up in a dead end with "nothing" to show for it? Mir? Upstart? How long until snap is abandoned for flatpak too? How many such experiments have made it upstream? I find a lot of the issue is that there's an attempt to keep some key parts of things "locked up" (either with a CLA and/or actual proprietary bits). I can't imagine Fedora going along with something like that. Though I admit I've been *far* outside the loop on project-wide efforts for the past…multiple years beyond LWN coverage despite being a user and a packager.

Personally, my latest gripe with Ubuntu has been their abysmal communication about releasing fixes for the last splurge of Linux kernel vulnerabilities. That seems awfully…core to being a distro to me.

> I realize this downstream approach does not apply well to infrastructure changes like Forgejo but it does seem to apply to pretty much everything else. Even with Forgejo: has IBM already been using it in anger internally?

AFAIK, there was a *lot* of community discussion around it (some of it even covered here). Of course, this is perhaps an instance of *Fedora* forging (heh) ahead on a custom solution (Pagure) instead of finding something out there. But then again, the forge "scene" was *very* different back when it was being selected too (pre-2016)… Though Pagure seems about 4+ years older than that, so perhaps just a "wrong horse" problem instead.

Downstream

Posted Jun 21, 2026 13:26 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (1 responses)

> How many such experiments have made it upstream?
> [...]
> ... Ubuntu's abysmal communication about releasing fixes for the last splurge of Linux kernel vulnerabilities.

"Upstreaming" back is an important question but a very different question.

How many of your git branches have made it upstream? Good question that does not invalidate the mere concept of branching. No one wants to go back to SVN or (God forbid) Perforce where everyone sees what everyone else does all the time.

Downstream

Posted Jun 22, 2026 2:39 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

I at least push things as PRs when I find them. Heck, I just dug out some things from my dotfiles that have stagnated in the past 10+ years since I vendored them and submitted cleaner ways to implement them in the past week[0]. I can't really do much to get them *merged*, but I don't keep them secret… I also push hard[1] on upstreaming any patches we do at $DAYJOB to projects we use and have things that are upstreamable (not everything is).

[0] https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-syntax-highlighting/pull...
[1] To the point where I ask for a PR link (or issue link if it is suspected we have a hackjob in place) before accepting a local bugfix.

Cloud numbers are not measured by last value

Posted Jun 18, 2026 4:29 UTC (Thu) by davdunc (subscriber, #12473) [Link] (1 responses)

I think that the cloud numbers were the results of not understanding how to evaluate the number of cloud instances that are used. The number of cloud instances is varying quantity of instances by design. This should have been a statistical mean.

Cloud numbers are not measured by last value

Posted Jun 18, 2026 14:08 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

The problem may also be using the tool the wrong way. In general countme tries to give a rough 'age' of a system but is built around the assumption that a system is a singleton and long lived. Cloud instances tend to be short lived with large numbers of clones of an existing one showing up and then disappearing as a job grows or shrinks. Trying to count age on something that ephermeral has always lead to the 'cloud' numbers looking like this. At best, the cloud environments should just be considered 'rough' numbers using rolling averages of there were 'N' on this day not that they were of N age etc.

""generational switchover"" is not about retirement

Posted Jun 18, 2026 14:35 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

While many people think "generational switchover" is because people are retiring, but it occurs in waves for multiple reasons just like project growths occur the same way. Signups for a lot of organizations occur in 'waves' as groups of people seem to appear at the same time. Maybe it was that they were influenced to join by some event or person, or maybe they all just graduated around the same time and were looking at for were similar. There are groups of people who joined Fedora from the 'Red Hat Linux' days, but there are groups who came in waves at different times either because a new technology was added, another distribution had some sort of split, or because their school used it and they found they liked contributing.

And just like people entering, people leave in waves also. Maybe its because they are leaving the workforce, but it is usually that people get married, have kids, changed jobs, got seriously ill and decided to change lifestyles, or just decide that moisture farming isn't as bad as Luke Skywalker thought it was. Most long life volunteer organizations seem to see regular turnover with groups coming in and leaving. Short lived ones usually don't last past their first or second generation wave because there isn't any want to bring in new people to rock the boat.

Former Fedora packager here

Posted Jun 18, 2026 22:18 UTC (Thu) by jdulaney (subscriber, #83672) [Link] (1 responses)

For me, it's simple, I switched to Arch as my daily driver

Former Fedora packager here

Posted Jun 26, 2026 9:37 UTC (Fri) by swilmet (guest, #98424) [Link]

And *why* did you switch to Arch in the first place? Just for technical reasons?

Link to Video including correct position for start of the relevant presentation

Posted Jun 19, 2026 16:59 UTC (Fri) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]

On the why: digital sovereignty; working for free for the benefit of a single company

Posted Jun 26, 2026 9:25 UTC (Fri) by swilmet (guest, #98424) [Link] (1 responses)

I would like to mention also digital sovereignty outside of the US (in my case in Europe), as maybe one reason there are less contributors, because of Fedora being more US-centric than other distros (Debian is more international, openSUSE is more European, etc).

Basically, why would you *contribute* to a project which benefits primarily to a US company (Red Hat), while your country or continent is trying to rely less on the US big tech?

Another reason for volunteers: why would you work for free to a project which benefits primarily to a company? (This is also true for distros like openSUSE). It would be better of course to be paid for that work. At this point, a distribution like Debian or Gentoo seems more appealing for contributors.

On the why: digital sovereignty; working for free for the benefit of a single company

Posted Jul 5, 2026 20:18 UTC (Sun) by Hi-Angel (guest, #110915) [Link]

> Basically, why would you *contribute* to a project which benefits primarily to a US company (Red Hat), while your country or continent is trying to rely less on the US big tech?

I'd argue this reasoning doesn't apply well to open-source. Contributing to open-source benefits everyone. I bet there are European users of Fedora who would benefit from it; and if Red Hat at some point stops contributing to Fedora, Fedora stays because it's open-source.

Improve review experience instead of chasing the AI mania

Posted Jul 4, 2026 21:58 UTC (Sat) by georg.s (guest, #110733) [Link]

As a Fedora packager (who doesn't work for Redhat), the more Fedora tries to jump on the 'AI' hype train, the less motivated I get to continue contributing.

I imagine that (some) Redhat employees are encouraged to use 'AI' as much as possible and thus we also see 'AI' initiatives in Fedora, but this is really poison for a community project.

In addition, in my experience, there is a bottleneck with package reviews that got worse over the years.
Which doesn't really help to retain packagers, I guess.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
This article may be redistributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds