I am in favor of eliminating version numbering for Fedora. Twice a year, there would be a major update that would be downloaded automatically for everyone without the need for a special command. This would apply across all Fedora editions.
Why label Fedora with a version number? For the average person, it’s simply Fedora. The ISO image should indicate, at most, the year and month of the build.
I’m not sure I support the idea.
Without any versioning or naming conventions how would an end-user be able to quickly tell if their Fedora release is end of life.
What problem would that solve?
The year and month are the version number is different form.
Under these circumstances, there would be no end of life. Fedora would always automatically update to the latest version.
I think with that you have spotted the answer to your question: no version numbering would only make sense for rolling releases, which Fedora is not.
Would be interesting to see something like this but only for Fedora Atomic (especially now when the 2 major atomic desktops do updates automatically on a weekly basis by default). Fedora CoreOS already kinda does it with Streams: stable, testing and next.
Fedora-derived bootc images like Bazzite and Bluefin also do it but I’m not sure if that’s too far from upstream to be considered in this discussion.
Edit: I don’t know if this happens to a lot of people but at least in my family, my parents just use the computer, and assume updates happen automatically without user input (and I mean without any at all, like, not even opening the software manager to apply updates when they get notified kind of input)
I’d say there’s no difference here between Fedora Atomic and the non-atomic Fedora desktops in this sense, given that the Fedora Atomic desktops create their images from the same repos as their traditional Fedora edition/spin counterparts. And one still has to manually choose to upgrade to the newer version, when available (bet it from the command line with rpm-ostree rebase, or from within the software manager).
Both Bazzite and Bluefin mention that their images are derived from Fedora 44.
Right, but (unlike Silverblue and Kinoite), you don’t have the choice of remaining on Bazzite N-1 and still receiving updates. At some point, UBlue decides to switch, and everyone goes from N-1 to N in their next update.
Which distro did you use before you made the switch to Fedora? Why did you switch to Fedora? The previous one maybe was a rolling release, Fedora is not, still you came here. Now you try to change Fedora because you like rolling releases. Simple answer, go back to your previous one and you have what you want, we have what we want.
Rather than make bad faith assumptions about why the OP asked this question, we should answer with practical and historical facts as to why Fedora uses versioning.
Since OP has not returned yet to explain why they think what they do, telling them to go away seems not to be very collaborative.
Just another perspective to consider…
The purpose of this idea is not to turn Fedora into a continuously updated system.
The main idea is to eliminate the need for user intervention during major Fedora updates. The system will simply treat it like any other system update.
In this context, there would be no need to maintain the lifecycle of individual Fedora versions. There would be only one version, to which the user would automatically switch upon updating. At the same time, the user would not have to worry about whether software repositories are available for their version of Fedora.
Automating updates to new releases should be straight forward to implement, maybe leapp does it already. I would not use them.
We do not live in a perfect world and every fedora release is followed by a flurry of problems being reported and fixed. Personally I love to root-cause analyze these and fix them. But I find it unreasonable to early-update to a new point release on my users who are not computer savvy. I find it much more reasonable to keep them a version behind the latest and greatest. In industry RHEL is my main choice.
Fedora catering to the really out there rawhide group as well as the long-term-support is required group makes for maximal diversity.
Right, the way Fedora currently works means that if you’re a little risk-averse you can stay longer on version N-1 and wait for some of the post-release problems to be ironed out. I tend to leave it a month or so before updating. During that time, I can still get minor updates and security fixes.
If we had “no version numbers” then every user would need to either take the release as soon as it arrives, or go with no updates at all (including security).
In turn, we’d probably need to have stricter criteria around what blocks a new release - which would mean we either have to increase Fedora Quality resourcing (not clear how that would happen), or be less ambitious about the amount of change allowed into new releases. And the risk there is we please no one - delivery of new functionality happens slower, while risk-averse users are still forced to update earlier than they want to.
In turn, we’d probably need to have stricter criteria around what blocks a new release - which would mean we either have to increase Fedora Quality resourcing (not clear how that would happen), or be less ambitious about the amount of change allowed into new releases. And the risk there is we please no one - delivery of new functionality happens slower, while risk-averse users are still forced to update earlier than they want to.
I believe that Fedora’s current development pace is unnecessarily rushed. It would be more than enough if major releases came out once a year. That would allow plenty of time for developing new features and for testing.
To add to this, Fedora Atomic could have streams like CoreOS:
Oldstable for release N-1
Stable for release N
Beta / Next for release N+1
Latest / Rawhide for the latest builds
I don’t know how feasible this would be, but CoreOS doesn’t have releases, so it could be a possibility at least for Atomic versions?
The reason I use Fedora is because I like it pacing.
If I want to be conservative, live in the software past, then there are lots of good distros that I could use.
In general, it might be added that Fedora is part of an intertwined micro-ecosystem, within the Linux ecosystem, and this micro-ecosystem consists not only of Fedora (I massively simplify).
So users who feel that things are too fast on Fedora might also consider CentOS Stream, RockyLinux and AlmaLinux, all of them can be considered with epel enabled to have more packages, or using apps through flatpak/flathub.
Just to ensure everyone knows of the possibilities 
I am very happy with the way it works today. I love the freedom to go beta if I feel for it or even rawhide. Sometimes I like to wait a few to update, depending on personal situation. I never upgrade right before going on vacation or before I have some important work to do.