I think that’s been part of the issue. It’s been a while but I was once a top contributor to Fedora but I know these roads well. What I don’t understand is why Fedora, and particularly its governing boards, have become so well known for what they don’t want. I don’t have a clue what they do want. Is Fedora truly complete at this point?
The proposal as written seems to be a compromise / middle ground between Fedora’s actual mission, and nay-sayers. I just think it sends a weak message at a time where Fedora could be leading and shaping the future and saying “AI, our doors are open, let’s invent the future again”
For those that haven’t seen it, I think Fedora’s values align very well with this (and yes, I’ve signed it) - https://amplified.dev/. If the authors agree, then it might be worth it re-write this whole proposal with Fedora’s values at the center of it.
FWIW I think. Topic 1 is too limiting to apply globally. Topic 2 is fine. There are two topic 3’s for some reason and I think they should both be more open and encouraging, especially allowing for things to happen outside of Fedora Linux Proper (think of a project like Atomic or Silverblue but for AI). Section 4 doesn’t seem to really say anything beyond “don’t DDOS us” which really isn’t an AI policy 