You bring up a good point that I really want to move away from, whether that’s with a different name or with emphasized messaging.
Fedora Ready is NOT a certification program and I don’t think it should become one. As of now, vendors who are shipping or supporting Fedora are doing so on their own based on their standards of what makes a good enough experience to pitch to their customers. There is a general agreement that the experience has to be reasonable in order to use the Fedora trademark, but everything else is up to them.
Conversely, computers that are not confirmed by the vendor to ship or support Fedora will not be supported under the Fedora Ready Initiative. The community can support those computers in other ways like we currently do, but they won’t get the prioritized marketing, technical support, or community liaising that qualifying products do.
The core of the Fedora Ready Initiative is to support vendors who choose to ship or support Fedora on their hardware. If a vendor does that or wants to do that, we want to lend a helping hand where we can as needed, primarily through marketing, technical support, and liaising within the community.
So to answer the question, the vendors who choose to make Fedora officially supported on their systems are the ones we would work with, and we would focus on the offerings to which the Fedora support applies. We can assist with feedback in various ways, but ultimately it’s the vendors who need to support Fedora and whatever issues come up over the lifecycle of a system.
In the case of Slimbook, they did request the use of the trademark for Fedora Workstation, which required them to ship Fedora Workstation unmodified. For Framework I’m not sure if they have confirmed use of the trademark, but since they only support Fedora and don’t offer it preinstalled I don’t think it’s come up as an issue. In both cases, as stated above, the vendor is making the commitments and therefore it’s on the vendor to keep to those. The Fedora Project is not binding them to anything besides not being sloppy with the use of the trademark, whether that be in marketing or in poorly executed support.
My preference to this point is to lean on what the vendor would consider to be a good decision for a hardware platform that matches what Fedora can do out of the box. It’s also not our say at the end of the day because the vendors will manufacture the products they think will work well. As our relationship with each develops there is the opportunity of offering suggestions and feedback, but this is still their business to run.
However, there is a limit to which we would likely not want to spend time supporting a certain product. If for some reason a vendor says that a computer officially supports Fedora but does not have working wifi drivers, that’s not something the Marketing Team would want to promote because basic functionality is missing.
An Nvidia card is further down that spectrum. Some may say that it’s in the same boat as wifi support, but an Nvidia card does have support through the Nouveau drivers (which will hopefully improve as time goes on; I’ve heard good things) as well as the third party repo that you can enable from Gnome Software (meaning it’s not required to go into the terminal to enable all of RPMFusion for that purpose).
In both cases it’s the vendor who is signing off on the machine supporting Fedora. If they are saying it supports Fedora, it probably does and was probably tested. I know that in all three cases of current companies that offer Fedora that they do testing for Fedora on the machines that have it as an option.
This is an area I have to think about more. Up to now, all Fedora supported hardware as been led by the vendors. The Marketing Team has only shown up recently in the last 6 months to provide help. In other words, all of our efforts have been supplemental to the initiatives that the vendors are independently running. There is currently no expectation for the vendors to do anything for us - we’re just happy they’re shipping Fedora.
If we want to start thinking in terms of agreements and standards, we can do that. I think that the community’s inclination to think of Fedora Ready as a certification program would be satisfied by developing something more concrete. However, I thought we were trying to move away from formal partnerships. These seem like a move toward partnerships, not away from them.
I’ll beg the bigger question: do we want to develop formal partnerships with structures, agreements, and goals? Instead do we want to stay in the lane we’re currently in where all of our support is supplemental to the independent Fedora offerings of these vendors?