Fedora Org Chart Update/Re-Design (looking for feedback!)

Website & apps can be enriched by merging in the contents of https://apps.fedoraproject.org/

Hiya :wave: Thanks to everyone here for the feedback! I also visited the Fedora Design Team meeting this past Monday where I got some additional feedback.

I made several changes:

  • Gave everything a bunch more space to breath :relieved:
  • Since there weren’t too many significant content changes, I took the time to clean things up. If I missed something, please point that out!
  • I tapered the lines where they meet other lines. I think this was pretty effective in reducing those “bright spots”. The Spins “trunk” is now creating some kind of illusion but it is following the design “rules” used across the chart… is it just me or do other people see that too? Suggestions welcome on how to solve that! :thinking:
  • I condensed Ask & Discussion under Moderation → Discourse
  • I debated on adding the items from the Apps page. After checking it out I think that some things there are already represented here, that others might no longer be maintained, or are upstreams. If I add all of them, it might be sort of redundant and/or focused heavily on the websites and apps section. If there are a handful that should be highlighted here and are under active development/maintenance, I’d be happy to add 'em in!

Hopefully it’s getting close, though I still welcome additional feedback :raised_hands:


Maybe split it into desktop spins and others (just visually, not with a label). Also, Kinoite could be a bubble off of KDE Plasma.

I like that you assume I know which ones are which :wink: I know plenty about Fedora but haven’t internalized those since I’ve always been a Workstation user. Are all of the desktop spins listed on the Spins site?

While looking at the Spins site, I found the Labs site and I am wondering if it would make sense to break that off into it’s own area? I have a vague recollection of a discussion on this for the first version as well and we made the decision to condense them… can’t remember why tho :woman_shrugging: happy to hear people’s thoughts on this.

Yes, they should be — that’s currently the distinction.

We found in practice that the terminology and the big split confuses people. But I think a small, unlabeled split just grouping things separately would help organize it a little bit.

I hope that makes sense!

This is a BIG discussion we have every single time someone cross with the distinct names and sites:

At some point there should become one as “Solutions”, but not sure how if that will be the final term or if we are going to just ignore it or came with a new name. Let us know to the rest of us what will be the final name or if we are going to keep the distinction between them.

The last revision is beautiful.

Is it possible that the project leadership groups (i.e. the central nodes: Fedora Council, FESCo, and Mindshare) are color-coded to something different? I feel like this upper-level groups need more visual distinction.

Would anyone be upset if I took the last render of the above org chart and committed it to the docs? For context, I was at Red Hat Summit this week and I pulled this up to talk to people about how Fedora is organized. It feels very comprehensive to me in its current form!

1 Like

I apologize for not looking at this thread sooner but how much work would it be to change “Quality Assurance” to “Quality” or “Quality Team”?

There has been a recent discussion about changing the tag on Discourse and slowly changing other bits to match and it’d be great if the org chart matched.

1 Like

Hey folks- I needed to take a break from this project but I should be able to incorporate the various pieces of feedback in the next week or so… then I think it will be good to push to the docs :+1:


Thanks @riecatnor. This is not urgent. I’m looking forward to showcasing your great work on this. :raised_hands:

Here’s the latest draft. I made the following changes:

  • Rearranged the spins & labs to mitigate the illusion effect that was going on before
  • Changed the colors for the governing bodies. I used some other Fedora blue tones, as the rest of the image is in shades of blue/white. I tried other Fedora colors, but they seemed to bring too much attention to those bubbles
  • Changed “Quality Assurance” to “Quality”
  • Changed “A11y Working Group” to “Accessibility”… no one requested this but since we don’t have “team” or “working group” attached to other similar groups of people, this didn’t make sense. Also not everyone might know what A11y stands for.

Let me know if there is additional feedback! If not, I can send the png and source file to you @jflory7 or whomever is going to make the docs update :smile:

1 Like

Let me know if there is additional feedback!

For the Alternative Architectures, I think the title means “Alternative Architectures” for Normal or Main Architectures. However, I see the sub texts in the “Alternative Architectures”, it seems all the Architectures are written. So, I think “Alternative” is a kind of wrong terminology in the situation.

  • s390x
  • ARM
  • Power
  • PowerPC64le
  • Aarch64
  • x86_64

So, If you want to follow the following document, the tree can be like this, but I don’t think categorizing x86_64 CPU as “main” is useful information any more, as we see Arm CPU is popular in Apple’s laptops.
Fedora Alternate Architectures (Alternative Architectures)

  • Architectures
    • Main
      • x86_64
    • Alternative
      • ARM Aarch64 - I believe the ARM is same with Aarch64 (Arm 64-bit) in the context. Because we don’t ship the ARM 32-bit any more.
      • Power PowerPC64LE - That is same with the PowerPC64le in the document. As we don’t ship the PowerPC Big Endian any more. Maybe it’s nice to add the “PowerPC64LE”.
      • s390x

I would prefer the following categories supported or not supported but exists.

  • Architectures
    • Officially supported
      • x86_64
      • ARM Aarch64
      • Power PowerPC64LE
      • s390x
  • Not supported architectures
    • RISC-V
    • Anything else?

“Not supported” is a very long list. :slight_smile:

From the point of view of the org chart, I think “supported” isn’t important, really, but rather “is there an interested team”. So, I think it should just be “Architectures”, with:

  • ARM
  • System z
  • RISC-V

This leaves out x86_64, intentionally — there’s no specific team around it.

I see your point. As this is for the org chart, focusing on the “is there an interested team” makes sense.

I checked which terminology is good to describe System z. I see that the s390x CPU is used for both IBM z and Linux One series. So, the “System z” may not be the best terminology.

IBM LinuxONE is a family of servers built to host enterprise Linux applications. Its architecture, known as s390x, is designed to pack more compute power into every CPU core.

I would suggest the following ones.

  • ARM
  • S390x (changed!)
  • RISC-V

I updated the Architectures branch as requested. How’s this lookin’?


I’ll print it and put it on the wall. It’s so good looking that even my wife won’t object. :smiley:


Agreed that this is beautiful :heart_eyes: One thing I realized is that the Websites & Apps Initiative officially concluded and should be removed from the org chart. Maybe just leaving the Strategy 2028 bubble?

Justin (he/him)

Change made to the Objective area :tada: anymore last minute updates?

Also, @jflory7, are you happy with the color changes for the governing bodies?


This is gorgeous and I love it. The color contrast is good to me too, and definitely helps readability.

I may have already shown some of the recent iterations to folks curious about Fedora while I am here in Nigeria for OSCA Festival. I am conveniently going to pop this into my slide deck for my Fedora workshop tomorrow too. The timing couldn’t be better!