Introduction & Context
Following the Fedora Council 2026 Strategy Summit, we have developed a proposal to rethink how contributors are recognized and supported within the community. For more information about this proposal, read the Fedora Community Blog article with the concept introduction. As Fedora continues to grow, it becomes increasingly important to recognize and support contributors to sustain engagement, encourage continued participation, and ensure that diverse forms of contribution are valued. In the past, voting rights have been based on membership in FAS groups. This initiative explores a more human-centered approach to contributor recognition, moving beyond those purely metric-based systems to better reflect the diverse ways people contribute.
One key idea under discussion is “Fedora Verified,” a label on a Fedora account that distinguishes it from a standard registered account and provides additional rights, such as participating in Fedora Elections. This concept is aimed at building trust-based recognition while also supporting governance and access to shared resources. The goal is to acknowledge both visible contributions and the often-overlooked efforts, including but not limited to mentoring, documentation, and design. A primary motivation for Fedora Verified is that it allows us to consider eligibility for strategic activities in the community, such as voting in and running for community elections. This survey builds on early feedback gathered from community members and aims to refine the proposal further.
Section 1: Motivation & Value of “Fedora Verified” Status We would like to understand what motivates contributors to pursue a “Fedora Verified” status, and whether the proposed benefits align with what contributors actually value in their journey.
Note: For a full definition of the new "Fedora Verified" status and a clear comparison of what it offers versus standard (non-verified) contributor status, please read our ongoing discussion thread here: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/defining-a-fedora-verified-membership/182649
Q1. Rank these motivations for pursuing 'Fedora Verified' status from most important (1) to least important. The ability to participate in Fedora governance (e.g., voting in elections) Eligibility to take on leadership or decision-making roles Recognition of long-term contributions to the project Personal growth and learning opportunities (e.g., access to educational resources, Red Hat training credits) I am unsure about the purpose or benefits of Fedora Verified Status Other (please specify)
Section 2: Fairness Across Contribution Types
Fedora is built on many forms of contribution beyond code. This section aims to understand whether the proposed model fairly represents the diversity of contributions across the community.
Q2. Do you feel the proposed membership model fairly represents different types of contributors within Fedora? (Select one) Yes - it fairly represents most contribution types Somewhat - but certain contributions may be undervalued No - it favors specific types of contributions Not sure
Q3. Which types of contributions do you believe should carry equal weight when determining “Fedora Verified” status? (Select all that apply) Software/code contributions Documentation and knowledge sharing Community support (forums, chat, onboarding others) Event organization and outreach Design, UX, or creative contributions Administrative and leadership roles (e.g., group leadership and support) All contribution types should be equally valued Other (please specify)
Q4. Based on the baseline metrics outlined in the discussion thread, to what extent do you agree that these requirements are appropriate before a human review of the request? (Select one) YES – it acts as a useful filter NO – it is too exclusive / feels elitist MAYBE – the metrics need tweaking (please specify) It may make it more challenging for new contributors to get started
Section 3: Experience of New and Emerging Contributors
As the Fedora Project continues to grow, it is important to understand how this model may influence new contributors and their ability to engage with the community.
Q5. How do you think the proposed membership model would impact new contributors joining the Fedora community? (Select all that apply) It may make it more challenging for new contributors to get started It could reduce initial participation or engagement It may help clarify expectations and improve onboarding It could encourage more committed contributors to stay involved It will likely have no significant impact on new contributors Not sure Other (please specify)
Q6. Rank the following support methods from most helpful (1) to least helpful. Clear and accessible contribution guidelines Mentorship or peer guidance Transparent and well-documented evaluation criteria Regular feedback on contributions and progress Community recognition at early stages I am not interested in pursuing "Fedora Verified" status Other (please specify)
Section 4: Transparency and Trust in the Process
Trust in the validation process - specifically, how we review and approve individual contributors for the "Fedora Verified" status - is essential to the fairness and credibility of the program. This section focuses on how transparency influences that trust.
Q7. Which approach do you think is most effective for peer validation of Fedora Verified applicants? (Select one) Grassroots Vouches: Get explicit, public vouches from 5+ existing Fedora Verified contributors. Flexible and informal. Elected Committee: Membership Committee (staffed & elected) approves applicants. Structured and consistent. A combination of both approaches Neither / I prefer a different structured approach Not sure
Section 5: Clarity of Progression and Contributor Growth
A clear and understandable progression path - specifically the journey from standard contributor to a "Fedora Verified" member - can help contributors stay engaged and motivated. This section explores how well-defined that journey should be.
Q8. How clearly should the path to becoming “Fedora Verified” be structured? (Select one) Very clearly structured, with defined milestones and criteria Moderately structured, with some flexibility in progression Lightly structured, allowing some organic or self-driven progression No strong preference
Q9. What would help you better understand your progress toward “Fedora Verified” status? (Select all that apply) A contribution tracking system or dashboard Feedback from peers, mentors, or reviewers Clearly defined milestones or checkpoints Periodic updates or evaluations Other [PLEASE ENTER]
Section 6: Risks, Concerns, and Long-Term Sustainability
To ensure the model remains fair and sustainable, it is important to understand potential concerns or risks from the community’s perspective.
Q10. Rank these potential concerns about the membership model from your biggest concern to your smallest concern. Potential bias in the validation process Overemphasis on certain types of contributions Lack of transparency in decision-making Increased complexity for contributors Increased administrative/curative workload Alienation of newcomers or unverified contributors Status might be used inappropriately/maliciously Erosion of community culture (Friends foundation) No major concerns Other (please specify)
Q11. How confident are you that this model can be implemented in a fair and sustainable way? (Select one) Very confident Somewhat confident Not very confident Not confident at all Unsure
Q12. Do you agree with the proposed policy that "Fedora Verified" status expires after 12 months of inactivity? (Select one) YES – 12 months is fair and secure NO – 12 months is too short (members should have more time before losing status) NO – 12 months is too long (status should expire sooner) OTHER – a different method should be used (please explain below)
Outro: Thank you for taking the time to fill this out and review the survey - your feedback is greatly appreciated!
