“Fedora Verified" Membership Model Community Survey Analysis Report
Executive Summary The "Fedora Verified" Membership Model survey ran from April 21 to May 5, 2026, collecting 241 total responses from the Fedora contributor community. The survey explored community sentiment across six key areas: motivation and value, fairness across contribution types, the experience of new contributors, transparency and trust, clarity of progression, and risks and sustainability.
The results reveal broad interest in the concept but significant concerns about inclusivity, the impact on new contributors, and the proposed 12-month expiry period. The community shows a clear preference for recognising all contribution types equally and for flexible, not rigid, progression pathways.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Total Responses | 241 |
| Survey Sections | 6 |
| Survey Close Date | May 5 |
Section 1: Fairness of the Proposed Model
Q2 — Does the model fairly represent all contributor types? When asked whether the proposed Fedora Verified model fairly represents different types of contributors, the largest group expressed partial agreement, suggesting room for improvement in how non-code contributions are recognised.
| Response | Count | % of 97 |
|---|---|---|
| Somewhat — but certain contributions may be undervalued | 34 | 35% |
| Yes — it fairly represents most contribution types | 30 | 31% |
| Not sure | 22 | 23% |
| No — it favors specific types of contributions | 11 | 11% |
Key insight: Only 31% fully endorsed the model's fairness. A combined 34% expressed concern that certain contributions — likely non-code work such as community support, events, and design — may be undervalued. This is reinforced by Q3 findings below.
Q3 — Which contribution types should carry equal weight? Respondents were asked to select which contribution types they believe should carry equal weight in determining Fedora Verified status.
| Contribution Type | Yes Votes | % of 115 |
|---|---|---|
| All contribution types should be equally valued | 76 | 66% |
| Software / code contributions | 40 | 35% |
| Documentation and knowledge sharing | 38 | 33% |
| Design, UX, or creative contributions | 32 | 28% |
| Community support (forums, chat, onboarding) | 29 | 25% |
| Administrative and leadership roles | 29 | 25% |
| Event organisation and outreach | 27 | 24% |
Key insight: The most selected option — by a wide margin — was that ALL contribution types should be equally valued (66%). This is a clear signal that the community does not want a model that privileges code contributions over others.
Section 2: Baseline Metrics & New Contributor Experience
Q4 — Are the baseline metrics appropriate as a pre-review filter?
| Response | Count | % of 88 |
|---|---|---|
| YES — it acts as a useful filter | 34 | 39% |
| It may make it more challenging for new contributors | 26 | 30% |
| MAYBE — the metrics need tweaking | 15 | 17% |
| NO — it is too exclusive / feels elitist | 13 | 15% |
Q5 — Impact on new and emerging contributors
Respondents were asked to select all impacts they anticipate the model having on new contributors.
| Impact | Yes Votes | % of 115 |
|---|---|---|
| May make it more challenging for new contributors to get started | 45 | 39% |
| Could reduce initial participation or engagement | 35 | 30% |
| Could encourage more committed contributors to stay involved | 28 | 24% |
| May help clarify expectations and improve onboarding | 27 | 23% |
| Not sure | 11 | 10% |
| Will likely have no significant impact on new contributors | 10 | 9% |
Key insight: The top two concerns relate to barriers for new contributors. 39% worry the model makes entry harder, and 30% think it could reduce initial participation. These are significant signals that the model needs a clear, welcoming on-ramp for newcomers.
Section 3: Transparency, Validation & Progression
Q7 — Preferred peer validation approach
| Approach | Count | % of 89 |
|---|---|---|
| A combination of both approaches | 31 | 35% |
| Neither — I prefer a different structured approach | 25 | 28% |
| Grassroots vouches (5+ existing verified members) | 17 | 19% |
| Not sure | 9 | 10% |
| Elected committee review | 7 | 8% |
Key insight: No single approach commands majority support. A combination is preferred by the largest group, while 28% prefer something else entirely — suggesting the community wants more options or further discussion before a model is finalised.
Q8 — How clearly should the path be structured?
| Approach | Count | % of 81 |
|---|---|---|
| Moderately structured, with some flexibility in progression | 30 | 37% |
| Very clearly structured, with defined milestones and criteria | 23 | 28% |
| Lightly structured, allowing organic / self-driven progression | 20 | 25% |
| No strong preference | 8 | 10% |
Q9 — What would help contributors track their progress?
| Tool / Method | Yes Votes | % of 115 |
|---|---|---|
| A contribution tracking system or dashboard | 61 | 53% |
| Clearly defined milestones or checkpoints | 50 | 43% |
| Feedback from peers, mentors, or reviewers | 37 | 32% |
| Periodic updates or evaluations | 19 | 17% |
Key insight: Over half of respondents want a dedicated contribution tracking dashboard. Combined with the 43% who want defined milestones, this points strongly towards a need for tooling investment — likely Fedora Badges or a similar visible, gamified system.
Section 4: 12-Month Expiry Policy
Q12 — Do you agree with the proposed 12-month expiry?
| Response | Count | % of 81 |
|---|---|---|
| NO — 12 months is too short (need more time before losing status) | 42 | 52% |
| YES — 12 months is fair and secure | 36 | 44% |
| NO — 12 months is too long (status should expire sooner) | 3 | 4% |
Key insight: A majority (52%) oppose the 12-month expiry as proposed, feeling it is too short. This is one of the strongest single-question signals in the survey and should be directly addressed in any revision of the proposal.
Key Themes & Recommended Changes :
Based on the survey findings, the following themes emerge and suggested changes are proposed for the program proposal:
1. Value all contributions equally
66% want all contribution types to carry equal weight. The proposal should explicitly state that code, docs, design, community support, events, and leadership are all valid pathways to Fedora Verified status.
2. Lower the barrier for new contributors
39% are concerned the model makes entry harder for newcomers. A clear, visible on-ramp — such as a "Fedora Contributor" tier below Verified — should be considered to avoid discouraging early-stage contributors.
3. Build tooling: a contribution tracking dashboard
53% want a dashboard. This suggests investment in Fedora Badges or a similar visible tracking system would significantly increase buy-in and reduce the anxiety around unclear progress toward Verified status.
4. Revisit the 12-month expiry
52% say 12 months is too short. Consider extending the expiry to 18 or 24 months, or introducing a lightweight renewal process rather than full re-verification.
5. Keep the structure flexible, not prescriptive
62% prefer moderate or light structure. The model should avoid overly rigid criteria and allow contributors to demonstrate value through multiple, flexible pathways.
