Hi folks, I just closed the original Fedora Discussion topic on the AI Developer Desktop Initiative. In my closing reply, I asked folks to bring their feedback on Fedora Council governance and structural challenges into this new topic, so we can separate that conversation from the specifics of the AI Developer Desktop initiative.
As promised, I want to provide a transparent explanation for why I initially voted +1 for the Initiative, but changed my vote to -1 before the deadline closed. I know this looked confusing, and I understand why some might have worried about how the governance process was being handled.
Reflecting on the week of May 4th, I realize I initially approached this proposal through a purely procedural lens. When the proposal first arrived, I asked questions trying to figure out how to fit it into our ticket queue: Was it ready for a vote? Was this an open discussion, or were we just gathering facts for a decision? Because our current Community Initiatives process doesn’t clearly separate “conceptual feedback” from a “final vote,” things escalated to a formal decision very quickly.
When I originally voted +1 on May 6th, I did so thinking:
- Something this complex would be better guided with the experience of the Fedora Council officially shaping it.
- FESCo remains the ultimate technical gatekeeper. Even if the Council approved the strategy, FESCo would still rigorously review the actual execution.
I believed there was a viable technical base to proceed. However, on the days following my vote, I started reaching out privately to community members who had participated in the discussion. It quickly became clear that while the technology was being debated, it was the governance aspect that was causing real distress.
This quote from the original thread summarizes exactly why I realized I needed to change my course:
I changed my vote to -1 to hit the brakes and buy us more time.
Even though @gordonmessmer did a commendable job making tweaks based on feedback during the discussion, it was clear that many people still felt unheard. No vote or strategic initiative is important enough to make our highly-engaged contributors feel disregarded.
While I remain an AI skeptic myself (which I recently wrote about our AI-Assisted Contributions Policy), I also know we have to navigate this emerging space together. My -1 was not a hard veto saying “we will never do this.” It was a deliberate pause to say, “we are moving too fast, and we are leaving our community behind.”
I care deeply about community sentiment. We need to go on this journey together, without alienating folks or compromising the core values and ethics we have built in Fedora. I hope this helps explain my perspective and my actions. I am looking forward to working with all of you to figure out how we can improve our governance processes so we don’t repeat this kind of friction in the future.