I too have thoughts on the base image and would like to share them regularly and often. I don’t see myself on any of those teams, but willing to join if thats theres any value I can provide.
I knowingly agree to be bothered by nimbinatus on a regular basis.
Thanks for putting this together @nimbinatus 
I think being explicit about having the infra team involved would be good, even if in practice most folks from Release Engineering also contribute to the infrastructure.
I believe it would be good to have folks from Konflux upstream too.
I think we could target naming/website identity for Fedora 44. I would love to have Image Mode being more visible on getfedora.org. I also wonder if we could target to have a good adoption and contributions metrics systems. If we do this in the F44 cycle it would give us a good baseline to measure the impact of future changes.
I would be happy to volunteer to help drive these changes.
I’ve been working on setting up CoreOS builds on konflux so I’d happily join that discussion.
I am interested in attending the base images discussion as well
I read this thread, but I don’t understand what the idea of the universal installer is. Can someone here briefly and in concrete terms explain what is meant by it?
@nimbinatus: you can’t layer Flatpaks, but you can install them. Maybe this can better be done during the GNOME initial setup?
I think you are getting some of this engagement already! And for what you are not getting, I can try to offer some pointers.
I already see @joseph in this topic. At the moment, between him and me, this is the persistently-present Fedora Marketing Team. 
So, I think you are getting this input.
I for one always appreciate the thoughtful input and perspective @joseph brings to the conversation around these things. He has a lot of lived experience and wisdom in driving and running our Fedora social presence and brand voice. While he may humbly only take credit for running the Mastodon, I also think he has helped refine the overall Fedora “voice” in a lot of our external outreach.
I’m not sure a Fedora Docs Team perspective is what you need. Is it? I see the Fedora Docs Team as providing more guidance on the technical bits and pieces of helping teams set up their own documentation site inside the web of things with Fedora. While there is probably some institutional knowledge in terms of “what is and has been named in Fedora”, I think the Docs Team would have less input here until there is something more fully-baked and ready to publish.
Beyond naming, as I scroll through the topic, I see Fedora Docs get called out a lot. I will let @pbokoc and @pboy weigh in on the callouts and whether they see opportunity and potential for the Docs Team to contribute on the called-out areas of the Image Mode Initiative.
Community Ops focuses on contributor experience and data & metrics. I am not sure this is relevant for the naming, but I think there is a role that Community Ops could play as things get going and the focus is more on rallying the contributor community.
Ambassadors is tricky, but this will be more of our external folks who deliver a message outward to the wider public and our user community at events. I think Ambassadors would benefit more from clearly-defined talking points about how to communicate about an Image Mode Initiative, or whatever name is settled on in the end.
@ekidney and @madelinepeck always have incredibly thoughtful feedback as visual and web designers. I think they have valuable input on a Fedora brand and identity perspective, as the stewards of the Fedora Brand Book.
For the website, you want to look more into the Websites & Apps Team, which is more or less led by @glb and @darknao. They are pretty active on #websites:fedoraproject.org on Matrix.
Atomic Desktops please 