At Red Hat Summit 2026, we’re announcing Fedora Hummingbird — a new container-based rolling Fedora Linux distribution. This distribution provides access to the latest software as soon as it’s available upstream, which ensures that it’s up to date and secure.
Fedora Hummingbird primarily utilizes an image-based workflow, similar to containers, but also runs in virtual machines and even on bare metal. If you’ve been following Project Hummingbird‘s work on container images, or Project Bluefin’s work on the operating system, you already know the model. Fedora Hummingbird applies this model all the way down to the host OS.
The foundation for Fedora Hummingbird already ships today from the Hummingbird containers repository. You can pull and boot it right now.
What is Project Hummingbird?
The central goal of Project Hummingbird is to get as close to zero CVE reports as possible in every container image it ships, and to stay there continuously. The team made every architectural decision, including distroless images, minimal package footprints, hermetic builds, and the degree of pipeline automation, in service of that goal. “Distroless” means no package manager, no shell, just the application and what it strictly needs to run.
Why does this matter? When you pull a third-party container image today, you inherit its vulnerabilities and you’re on the hook for managing them. Pull a Hummingbird image and the team’s pipeline has already done the CVE triage, the patching, and the rebuild – you get to skip CVE hell. (If you’re curious, current CVE status across all images and variants is published live at the Hummingbird catalog).
Over the past eight months, the team has built a catalog of 49 unique minimal, hardened, distroless container images (that’s 157 variants including FIPS and multi-arch) covering Python, Go, Node.js, Rust, Ruby, OpenJDK, .NET, PostgreSQL, nginx, and dozens more. Distroless means no package manager, no shell, just the application and what it strictly needs to run.
How it’s built
The infrastructure behind this is a Konflux-based pipeline. It uses fully isolated, reproducible builds from pinned package lists, efficient incremental updates via chunkah (a tool the Hummingbird team built to ensure the system re-downloads only changed parts of an image), and continuous vulnerability scanning via Syft and Grype. When a vulnerability is patched upstream, the pipeline finds it, rebuilds, tests, and ships.
95%+ of the packages in every Hummingbird image come straight from Fedora Rawhide, unmodified. The build system pulls the remaining packages directly from upstream when Rawhide doesn’t yet carry them or isn’t new enough, and the team contributes changes back into Fedora. If that sounds like Fedora CoreOS, that’s because it’s a related idea, but serving a different use case. CoreOS is a minimal host for orchestrated workloads. Hummingbird serves developers who need to deploy multiple versions of runtimes (Python 3.11–3.14, Go 1.25–1.26, Node.js 20–25) in parallel and manage each version’s lifecycle independently.
The Hummingbird factory independently builds packages so they carry their own identity. This means each package can have a separate life cycle, patching policy, and CVE feed (specifically, a vulnerability feed that Red Hat’s Product Security team maintains). Every package ships with machine-readable vulnerability data that tells you not just which CVEs exist, but which ones actually affect your workload.
The OS as a container image
The challenges that Project Hummingbird seeks to address in userspace exist at the OS level as well, so we want to apply the same approach to addressing those challenges. This is where Fedora Hummingbird comes in. This image is already live at https://quay.io/repository/hummingbird-community/bootc-os. The team delivers this full Linux OS as an OCI image, and they build it using the same Konflux pipeline and hermetic RPM-locking approach as the rest of the Hummingbird catalog. Multi-arch: x86_64 and aarch64.
Under the hood, Fedora Hummingbird will use the ARK kernel (Always Ready Kernel) from the CKI project (already running in Fedora today) which tracks Linus’ mainline directly. The benefit of leveraging the CKI project is the curated kernel configuration and elaborate engineering framework that includes extensive testing around a fast-moving kernel stream.
The Fedora bootable containers initiative laid out the groundwork for all of this. The idea is that the OS is an OCI image, built and distributed like any other container, and updated atomically with rollback built in. No partial update states. No configuration drift. The root filesystem is read-only. Any writeable state lives in /var and /etc, cleanly separated from the OS content.
The Hummingbird bootc OS image boots today. What’s still in progress is the integration work. The image is currently a mix of Hummingbird-built RPMs and Fedora packages, and we’re working out how to bring the two closer together. That’s exactly the kind of work we’d love to collaborate on.
Hummingbird in the Fedora community
Many members of the Hummingbird team are already Fedora contributors and package maintainers – maintainers of Podman, and other container tools that Fedora and the broader Linux ecosystem depend on, as well as maintainers of Fedora CoreOS. Members of the Fedora community contributed the bootable containers work that underpins Fedora Hummingbird. Now those members are continuing the work as part of Hummingbird. Moving forward, we’d like to make Hummingbird a part of the Fedora Project so that it can benefit and grow within that same community.
The Hummingbird pipeline already builds and publishes a set of container images based entirely on Fedora Rawhide at quay.io/organization/hummingbird-rawhide. The team has already started bringing improvements back to Fedora. These include container-specific optimizations, bugs found in .spec files, and more. The vulnerability feed that ships with Hummingbird packages is something we think could benefit the broader Fedora ecosystem too.
Getting started
Here are some quick-start instructions for getting a virtual machine up and running:
0. Retrieve the image
sudo podman pull \ quay.io/hummingbird-community/bootc-os:latest
1. Create the image
sudo podman run --rm --privileged --pull=newer \ --security-opt label=type:unconfined_t \ -v /tmp/bib-config.toml:/config.toml:ro \ -v /var/lib/libvirt/images:/output \ -v /var/lib/containers/storage:/var/lib/containers/storage \ quay.io/centos-bootc/bootc-image-builder:latest \ --type qcow2 --rootfs ext4 \ quay.io/hummingbird-community/bootc-os:latest
2. Rename the image
sudo mv /var/lib/libvirt/images/qcow2/disk.qcow2 \ /var/lib/libvirt/images/fedora-hummingbird.dc2.crunchtools.com \ && sudo rmdir /var/lib/libvirt/images/qcow2
3. Create a virtual machine
sudo virt-install --connect qemu:///system \ --name fedora-hummingbird.dc2.crunchtools.com \ --memory 4096 --vcpus 2 \ --disk /var/lib/libvirt/images/fedora-hummingbird.dc2.crunchtools.com,format=qcow2 \ --import --os-variant fedora-unknown \ --network network=default,model=virtio \ --graphics vnc --noautoconsole
Get involved
When you’re ready to try it, there’s no registration form, no subscription-manager, no entitlements required. The code is already there and the pipeline is already running — we’d love more eyes on it. Here’s how to jump in:
- Try the image: You can find instructions on using the image on Quay
- File issues and feedback: anything broken, missing, or surprising is worth reporting at this stage
- Contribute: the project currently lives at gitlab.com/redhat/hummingbird/containers — establishing a home in Fedora’s own infrastructure is part of the work ahead
- Join the conversation: visit the SIG page for info on our getting-started sessions.
Fedora has always been where the community proves out new Linux ideas before they matter everywhere else. Fedora Hummingbird is an experiment for image-based, continuously-maintained operating systems, and we think it’s ready for the community to kick the tires.




What does this mean, everything else is not save anymore?
Why do I need a Red Hat Login while the project is declared as a Fedora driven project?
Every new system is more secure than every other new system
quite a few links not working in the article!!!
I am logged in with the FAS account. Clicking on the link asks me to login with a RH account.
Is calling this Fedora Hummingbird accurate or even allowed under our trademark guidelines? I didn’t think Project Hummingbird was officially integrated into Fedora at all.
Wow. Frankly, that article sounds hostile to me. It’s basically claiming to be “Fedora Linux”, then again that it is not but that it is secure as opposed to everyone else; with “curated kernel config and elaborate engineering framework”. A whole $$$$-load of sales pitch.
In the end, you find out that to at least 95%, it is Fedora rawhide distributed as a bootc variant; with a kernel from the same source as the rawhide kernel (minus the Fedora patches); plus some apps built as containers (“hummingbird”) in order to get them from upstream directly rather than packaging them “distroless”, which again is just a sales pitch for “no package manager inside”. What’s the runtime?
So it’s something moving faster than rawhide, with updates “gated” by the basic bootc mechanism (ship working images only, apply atomically).
“The team has already started bringing improvements back to Fedora.” So what is it? Fedora or not Fedora?
There might be even some good ideas in there, but given how this started and how it is communicated I can put zero trust in this.
I was told that Project Hummingbird is “working with the Fedora council to introduce this into the Fedora ecosystem.” [1]
â©ï¸
For me it will be Fedora when the access to it also is allowed over Fedora (FAS), and a sign up to RH is not needed. I am not against Corporate Business, however I would like to have the liberty how deep I want to go back into it.
I would propose that we take such Topics offline as long as the community access is not available.
And the community it selves has nothing to say?
P.S.
Within W7 MS already announced the next OS releases will be as a service. It looks like we are preparing for that in the Linux world and have to silently introduced it within the Fedora Community. Tsssss … Why paying for employees when there is a community which makes it for free!
Discussions about Hummingbird inclusion in the Fedora Project are in the
early stages, but there is no such thing as Fedora Hummingbird. IMHO,
this post should be taken down and reevaluated, as it sounds like there
was a miscommunication about Red Hat’s Hummingbird Project being a
Fedora deliverable.
Even from the first sentence, Red Hat Summit is mentioned, which is a
Red Hat marketing event, not a Fedora thing, and it refers to Fedora
Hummingbird as a Fedora Linux distribution which it is not.
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/article-proposal-engage-with-
fedora-community-around-project-hummingbird/189735/3 â©ï¸
Is it really a Linux distribution? AIUI it’s a set of container images tightly oriented to specific purposes. In fact, later in the article they’re even referred to as “distroless container images”.
@council I do hope I didn’t jump the gun by letting this article go through. I was seeing things like a Hummingbird Forgejo repo [1] showing up and I had the impression that this was going forward. Let me know if this should be unpublished.
Fedora Forge - Hummingbird â©ï¸
Take a look at this devel-list post and thread from a few weeks ago for some background.
That thread does seem to back up @gotmax23 's point:
It shows IBMRH employees enthusiastic about pushing this forward, but it’s not clear that this has gone through the steps that would make the “Fedora Hummingbird” branding appropriate.
It’s said in the thread that:
…but the Fedora Innovation Lifecycle itself is not yet approved and further work on it has been requested by the Council.
This looks like a great project!
I have a quick question:
what makes this version special compared to the original Fedora images?
Hey folks! So there has definitely been planning and communication going on with the council around this, but the best-placed person to reply to this is @jspaleta and he’s either on stage or deeply involved in the Summit presentation (I’m not watching the stream so I’m not sure which). If folks could hold on for him to be able to reply here, that’d be awesome. We’ll definitely address all the questions.
I’ve got the same question about that. After reading, isn’t this a set of hardened distroless containers? Would the approach be to create such distroless containers for Fedora? Note that I also cannot access the quay link listed.
Fedora’s approach is to “default to open”, so it would be good to have these plans and communications publicly shared.
As former Project Leader, I know that there’s always a tension between transparency and Red Hat’s business and marketing desires to have splashy exciting announcements at Summit. Once that has settled down, the real work can start.
Hello everyone,
I’m happy to address questions as I can, but I may be a little delayed today.
Off the top…
Fedora Hummingbird has received Trademark Approval via Council.
With regard to the link access in the magazine article… that’s a technical mistake, Please hold while that gets worked out.
This link should work for everyone
Oh, yet another Fedora sub-project, one could argue that the project is diversifying more and more… at some point users won’t even know what Fedora actually is or stands for.
Fedora Editions
Fedora Atomic Desktops
Fedora Spins
Fedora Labs
Specialized Variants
Let’s add: Fedora Hummingbird
you forgot the AI desktop thing!
Does this mean this has already been approved by the Council? Thanks!
Did this happen in public? I see nothing in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues?q=Hummingbird&type=all&sort=relevance&state=all&labels=&milestone=0&project=0&assignee=0&poster=0&archived=false.
It happened via a private ticket, but there is currently a gap in the Forge infrastructure for private tickets, so it followed an interim process via email. I’ll let Jef and the council expand on that, but that’s the basic answer.
Read here: Red Hat / hummingbird / containers · GitLab
All,
I want to reach out and make myself available to answer questions. I was one of the people who led the launch of Fedora Hummingbird Linux.
First, we love Fedora. We brought this to Fedora because we believe, I personally believe, that developing something like this in a community-driven way is important. It drives innovation and better ideas. The article is in no way intended to offend the Fedora community, it’s meant to be a compliment.
Second, the links. You will NOT need a Red Hat login, nor Fedora login for this. Users will not need any login to download it. This is purely a logistics error because some of the links were wrong when we published. I ask everyone to give the team some time to get that part fixed.
Third, this is something that Red Hat is committed to, much like Fedora overall. Please give us some time to prove this out as a technology. We believe that Fedora Hummingbird Linux is interesting because of the methodology for how it’s built and will have applications throughout the RHEL and Fedora ecosystem. We ask for a little grace and a little space to show how committed we are to this and the Fedora community, and how we think this will make the entire community stronger.
The quickstart guide contains an error. The
bib-config.tomlis not provided. Where can we find it?I agree with your argument. This is a place where I think the Fedora Innovation Life Cycle proposal would really help:
So, I am kinda disappointed that this happened in secret without proper community feedback. I would have said I supported the idea but would like to see more technical details and (at least a plan for) integration into Infra and usage of Fedora distgit sources before this became an official Fedora thing like I had started asking about on the devel post. I believe others expressed similar sentiments. And that seems to have been disregarded completely which feels crummy. The original devel post was framed as a request for feedback, not an announcement of something that was already happening.
See @mattdm 's post above.
Here’s Adam’s Highly Non Politically Correct Take He Hopes Nobody Too High In His Management Chain Sees: RH wanted a big splashy announcement for Summit, and now it’s got one.
If you believe that RH is sufficiently nimble, organized and internally-communicative that it is entirely certain what it actually wants Fedora Hummingbird to be already, somebody in PR needs a massive raise, cos I bet we don’t.
Now the Summit thing is done the types of people who care a lot about getting announcements done for Summit will relax, and the rest of us can get on with the business of figuring out what the thing is actually going to be…
How often are private tickets used for situations like this, where the reason for privacy appears to be just to allow IBMRH to keep the matter under wraps for marketing reasons? (I’m not talking about the case where private tickets for matters which are sensitive for private personal reasons).
Are they at least consistently disclosed retrospectively?
Now that Discourse posts here are mirrored on the Fedora Magazine article iteslf, they might get a bit more promotion than anticipated.
it’s fine, the format’s so janky that anyone important enough to fire me would get bored before they got all the way down here!
One of the reasons that I think “Fedora is not a product” is the correct position is that as a project, Fedora isn’t for anything. It doesn’t have acceptable use cases. It doesn’t discriminate. It doesn’t dictate a purpose.
Meaning and purpose are things you supply, as the user. The project only supplies the mechanism.
I don’t see anything about Hummingbird that fundamentally changes what Fedora is.
Can we drop “Linux” from the naming? No other Edition/Atomic Desktop/Spin/Lab has it - only Fedora Linux as an umbrella term. Unless it’s meant to stand out.
Hey folks! I am dropping in on behalf of @jspaleta and the Fedora Council.
So, there was a lot of work behind the scenes that pre-empted this announcement. We knew people would have a lot of questions and feedback once this came. For the technical questions, I’ll let @fatherlinux and the folks driving the work weigh in on those. However, in my reply, I will do my best to walk through how we got here and a little hint of where this work could go next.
However, the thing that I want to top-post is that I ask for everyone’s patience on this. Just like any open source project, not all of the details are figured out yet. And that’s okay! Perhaps most importantly, no new work is being forced into anyone’s workflows. This announcement is not going to generate new, unplanned work for packagers and the Fedora development community. If there are major changes, then you could likely expect to see smaller bits work their way through the Fedora Changes process.
However, this new thing is happening in Fedora. As someone who spent seven years as a volunteer before I made it to Red Hat, I know people have questions, concerns, and doubts. (I also saw the saga of Modularity unfold, as many of y’all also did.)
What feels special to me here is a real, demonstrated commitment that I have seen to doing this work in an open, public way, aligned with the Fedora Foundations and our unique culture. And I’m not just saying that. I really mean it. When @fatherlinux first came to the Fedora Council, I think he was actually about to throw in the towel because we had so many demands and feedback from the original form! We put him and the Hummingbird team to task on making real commitments to the Open Source Way and Fedora. And they listened and addressed our feedback.
So, give us your feedback, but don’t assume the worst here. We want to partner with the community to build something new and exciting. There is still a lot of room to define the future, and we are going to
Now, let me try and answer to the specific comments and questions that I can below.
First off, this is something brand new that I was not expecting. You’re right that it is going to drive a lot more attention and discussion here. To be honest, I was not prepared for that, but here we go! We are really doing our best!
Congratulations, y’all found the first bug!
This was totally accidental and obviously not a good luck. No account or logins are needed, especially a Red Hat account. If it needed a Red Hat account, it would be called Red Hat Hummingbird. 
It is permitted, and the Fedora Council did approve it. @fatherlinux in particular has been engaging with us for months, trying to understand how to do this right, how to build this in the community-first way, and where to plan future resources for the right things.
I’ll comment more about the specific trademark process the Council followed in below comments.
Fair. I don’t think we are asking anyone to jump in today and start adopting anything. Trust has to be earned, and it is earned through demonstrated commitment.
So, I respect what you are saying here. However, I hope that you will remain an observer, like me, to the demonstrated commitment that will come around this work. And ultimately, if you don’t like it in the end, that’s fine! Nobody is being forced into using it or adopting their workflows.
It is a new, experimental idea, but also with real resource allocations behind it.
Agreed! Bug fixed.

Well, hello there!
Here you are. Let’s discuss! 
Could you explain which part of this announcement makes you feel this way? I genuinely do not feel this is the case, but I would like to better understand why you feel this way. Maybe @fatherlinux and the team could adapt things to address concerns.
I know the team wants feedback and to do this in the Open Source Way. There is room not just to consume and use, but also to participate. This is just unfolding, so expect that more contribution pathways will emerge on this too, outside of mere feedback.
Even before my time at Red Hat, Fedora folks have brought things from Red Hat Summit to Fedora. After all, RHEL and many other Enterprise Linux distros (Amazon Linux, Rocky, AlmaLinux, and many more) are a major part of our ecosystem. I don’t think it is necessarily surprising that things that happen downstream float their back upstream.
Certainly for me, when I became involved eleven years ago as a volunteer, this relationship felt pretty clear to me. And I was okay with it!
Indeed. I think the Sandbox stuff is still in the oven and needs to get baked more. It is an important discussion, but the Sandbox is not ready for primetime in Fedora yet. I think we will get there. We need a better framework for experiments in Fedora, and a pathway to either succeed and grow, or to gracefully fail and shut down.
This is the outset of it! As I said at the top, I encourage folks to approach this with cautious skepticism. The team really wants to show up and do the work. The real work. It is impossible to expect perfection, and I think we need to leave room for things like this to emerge and prove themselves.
Let’s leave room for the Hummingbird team to build up and do the work. There are no special exceptions being made here, no unwritten policies being enforced, and no fast-track bypass of community governance.
The only thing that happened without much public transparency was the trademark request. I understand why folks would feel upset that this was not public. However…
As Matthew said, sometimes there is this tension. Our trademark policy does not say there has to be a public ticket; it only says there needs to be Fedora Council approval. The Council did review and discuss this. Perhaps aggressively so, it could be said. Now, normally we do use tickets for this, but this whole issue with no private issues on Forgejo yet (as we had in Pagure and even Trac before that) was the perfect storm for why this might feel weird for many of you.
Indeed, if we had private tickets, I would have pushed @fatherlinux to do that at the outset, so we could have flipped a switch from private to public. That said, I think we should have a public ticket for documentation and tracking purposes. Expect to see this soon.
Honestly, I think this long list does demonstrate that we need a better way for experiments to happen in Fedora. What happens when anyone, not just Red Hat, wants to take a big bet on technology? (Btrfs is a famous example of a not-Red-Hat technology bet—it does happen![1]) We need a framework for new ideas and experiments.
ONLY the trademark. No other special exceptions. If there are changes, expect to see either System-Wide Changes or Self-Contained Changes.
I know this part feels bad. I also know if I were not at Red Hat, it might have felt fishy for me too. But since I have an insider perspective and I have gotten to know @fatherlinux better, let’s say that today is where we change the narrative. No more secrets and no avoiding community feedback.
The doors are open for feedback, and not only! I really do believe that the participatory part of this is genuine and real. But we need to let @fatherlinux and the Hummingbird team show up and earn your trust. I fully expect that you, and others, do not have that trust yet. Let’s see if we can change your mind!
There is a lot to figure out still. You’re right! My hope is that there is enough of something figured out for people to sink their teeth into, but not enough to call it a finished and done thing.
If Fedora Hummingbird is actually going to be a successful thing, then the community will have to come along. I really like to believe that we suffered enough trauma and PTSD from Modularity to not make many of the same mistakes.
OK, so I think I can answer this as someone who actually served on the Fedora Council years before I worked at Red Hat. We also have had private tickets for a long time, not only after the IBM-Red Hat acquisition. Most of the private tickets we have had in my tenure in Fedora were actually Code of Conduct issues. Before 2020-2021, the Fedora Council was effectively the Code of Conduct Committee. So, whenever those issues came up, it went to the Council.
For various reasons, I believe it is unethical to make private issues from the past like this into public ones today. However, if someone is elected to the Fedora Council, then they will be able to see the private Forgejo repo where we migrated our private issues from Pagure.[2]
Obviously, this is not a Code of Conduct issue. We have a few cases of things where we had private tickets which were later made public. See the provenpackager incident from a while back and the current ticket we have about a Conflict of Interest Policy. On Pagure, this was opened as a private issue but we chose to make it public.
Hmmm. I agree and disagree simultaneously! Per the F21 decision to create Editions, we realized that some sort of purpose is needed to differentiate Fedora’s offerings from the crowd. If Fedora wasn’t for anything, then people would use Ubuntu or Arch Linux instead without ever thinking about Fedora.
However, I think this responsibility is up to Editions, and even individual SIGs and Working Groups, to explain the purpose and objectives of what makes something we are doing different and worthwhile. Otherwise, it just disappears into the fog of confusion and uncertainty.
Yes, I hand-typed my em-dash with my Compose key, I did not use ANY AI at all to draft this reply, but I am not going to give up my em-dashes just because AI stole them from me. I was using them first!!! â©ï¸
I don’t think this is a good reason to solely run for election on Fedora Council! But the point I am trying to make here is that if we had things we didn’t want anyone to see, then it would be behind a Red Hat firewall and be super locked down. That is simply not the case here. â©ï¸
I understand that, but I specifically said (it was the
[...]in what you quoted) that I was not referring to personally sensitive issues.So I guess my question is: are there forever-private tickets where the reason for privacy is not a Code of Conduct matter, or some other personally sensitive matter?
To be honest, I’d have to go back and look at our private issues to be sure, but nothing jumps to my mind immediately. I can look later this week once I get back home. Hard to dig in right now while I’m traveling!
I can’t answer how often they’re used, but I can absolutely say that we will disclose it all.
In addition to the missing
bib-config.tomlfile mentioned in the Getting Started section of the article, I also see that the steps have changed slightly. It looks like the image builder no longer pulls images for you when you execute the first step:At least the error message explains how to correct it but, it may be good to update the “Getting Started” section.
@nhr: Would you like me to add
sudo podman pull quay.io/hummingbird-community/bootc-os:latestto the first step in the Getting Started section of your article?If it means anything, I had initially assumed this blog post was a mistake (see upthread where I kind of made a fool of myself) since Council usually is transparent with its decision-making and I did not see a public topic about it.
I don’t have mistrust toward anyone involved with Hummingbird. I like Fedora and they want to make Fedora better, so I’m happy to collaborate, figure out any issues that may come up, review the eventual Change Proposal, etc. It doesn’t have to be that deep
[1].
Okay, maybe it’s a little deep
—[2] I still wish the decision-making process was more transparent here, and I understand there were $REASONS for that not happening, but that doesn’t have to taint the Hummingbird+Fedora integration work itself. â©ï¸
This em dash was also typed by a human and not an LLM (
Ctrl+Shift+U2014). â©ï¸Since the folks working on this likely have their hands full until Thursday, I think it is safe to say, yes please!
I don’t think that’s controversial since it is in the warning message anyways. We can always change if it should be something else.
Hey, no, that’s not on you. If I were in your shoes, I’d probably feel the same way. We have a process for a reason and I think it is totally reasonable to have assumed there was some issue here. In an ideal world, everything would have been public from the outset. But now, things are public and open, and as with any effort, the usual rules apply from here on out.
I’m thinking we could probably review the trademark policy to at least make it more obvious that not everything will be public at the start. I was thinking about this today, and if I remember right, the Framework Computer folks asked us privately for a trademark approval on an upcoming pre-release product they were working on at the time. I could be misremembering, but I think they opened a private Fedora Council ticket which we later made public when the embargo was cleared.
Thanks @gotmax23! I appreciate that a lot.
I fully expect there will be future work for FESCo to review from the Hummingbird folks, as things integrate more with Fedora proper instead of being a periphery thing. We’ll get there! 
Thanks Justin,
I agree with everything Justin has said here. No notes from me.
I’m looking forward to the Hummingbird SIG meeting at the end of the month.
Isn’t this entire thread proof that an “open, public way” is exactly what has not happened here?
It’s less than three weeks since the story being presented in email to the devel list was that they would like to “explore bringing this work more formally into the Fedora
community” and now it’s a done deal?
In reality of course there’s no way they weren’t already planning the big summit announcement when they sent that email so presumably it was just an attempt to create some sort of fig leaf of community consultation without blowing the “big bang” announcement.
I agree with @tomh . It was a minor case and without bad intention, but effectively, the community has been misled, including those who had been involved in getting this forward with the assumption this is just to get the SIG started. Even if it was just 10 minutes or so someone is involved to create a tag in a category - minor thing, minimal work - but it’s still making the community work for what still is a RH project. Community channels were only used to implement a decision done effectively by RH. This is not a way to start gaining trust.
It is hard for a big hegemon (which RH is in this community) to avoid imposing its preferences intuitively on the community by accident: it needs careful consideration of implications and precise planning and communication to ensure such an accident does not happen. The Council is likely to be crucial in this process: translating, explaining, filtering, feedbacking and “firewalling” (not in a hostile sense!) between RH and the Community: yet, as far as I have information (which is not much: thus this is only an assumption!), the Council seems to have acted as a passthrough entity in this case, and did so with one-way information provisioning most of the time. When information provisioning takes place matters.
I have not sufficient information to say what and where an error has happened (which in a community that lives from transparency is already a flaw in itself), but at first glance, I am not sure if RH has failed, or the Council?
The major problem: if that is a new norm, the Council became unpredictable for the community members who ain’t involved in internal RH information flows, and predictability is the core of governance towards those who are governed (at least if they want to be accepted+treated as the governors). Where is the boundary, the limits? Referencing the rules doesn’t help, as they give the Council more or less “unpredictable amounts” of power, that used to be balanced by transparency except in security/privacy-sensitive cases. That does no longer apply?
Again, this is a minor case, and I do not expect any bad faith or bad intention on any side, and I like the Hummingbird project to be integrated as far as I see it at first glance. It is more an underlying issue that I think should not be “just dismissed”, also for the sake of the Council.
I still got the same errors today (If i used the link in a private new windows, I had the choice to accept a ton of cookies), and the link seamed to be the same. As already said, bad prepared announcement with a lot of “yes, but …”
I fixed the link direct in the Magazine on my own
.
From the original post:
Have a look at the image-builder.
I’d say this is sort of a “different perspectives” thing.
You’re looking at it from a “the alternative was everything being discussed out in the open from day one” perspective. Justin is looking at it from a “the alternative was Red Hat deciding this didn’t need to happen in Fedora at all and doing an end run around us” perspective.
That’s why to Justin (and, honestly, me) this is on the good end of the possibility spectrum. I’m happier that RH is trying to do Hummingbird via Fedora - yes, even with the initial, probably-unnecessary secrecy - than just doing it independently (which runs the risk that, in a few years, RH turns around and goes “and why are we even funding this Fedora thing any more?”)
From inside Red Hat, especially if you don’t work on Fedora, it is possible/tempting to look at Fedora as a source of strife. It’s got all these people in it, with opinions, who aren’t on the payroll! You can’t tell them what to do or think or complain to their manager! They have eternal arguments about everything! You have to write a wiki page and convince some person you’ve never heard of that your idea is good! Who needs this?
So we’re kind of constantly fighting a tendency for RH to just spin stuff up in channels it 100% controls, which tends to seem easiest at first then turn out to be a mess after a few years.
I agree that ideally this should’ve just been spun up openly from day one, but I also get where Justin’s coming from in thinking it’s a lot better than it could have been (it could have been RH announcing “OpenBird” or something and dumping some repos on GitLab).
The stuff from the devel list discussion is still all true, really. Ultimately all that’s been “approved” is that there will be a thing called Fedora Hummingbird (exact shape TBD). It doesn’t get to be release-blocking or an Edition or anything like that without going through the usual processes. Right now it has no more significant status than many of the other dozens of “Fedora somethings” listed by @augenauf above.
The idea here is genuinely to try and build a thing that people will find useful/valuable. It’s not just openwashing for a “RH project”. As per my other post, RH could easily do that itself if it wanted to - RH is behind plenty of upstreams that are entirely independent of Fedora already, e.g. OpenShift and Foreman. From inside RH it can be seen as easier to do that than go through Fedora processes.
I think everyone made their points and it might be useful to avoid ending in circles. I would like to add a perspective on one of your justifications though. Not to disprove your point, but maybe highlight how dangerous its justification is, and that it maybe could achieve the opposite of what it was actually intended for.
In the context in which you made it, doesn’t this justification inevitably lead to Fedora being step by step transformed into a corporate unit of RH and behave as such?
I mean, if RH no longer finds it useful to keep funding Fedora and compares it, as you indicate, to its integrated alternatives (in which people “can be told what to do”), and uses the performance indicators that are usual in integrated alternatives, then Fedora cannot compete until it reached the point of being identical, right?
This would mean, that the transparency institutions of Fedora (to stick with a simple isolated example) must be step by step replaced by secrecy institutions in order to protect the transparency, which at some point will no longer exist anyway.
At the same time, the Council would more and more decrease the likelihood that any other organization would take over, as when it becomes apparent that we need to find alternatives, the Fedora governance is already so unpredictable from the outside and integrated into RH that no other organization would touch it.
With this in mind, would it be not more useful to let RH cut funding early and when it is rationalized as such (in contrast to a subtle non-rationalized non-discussed process that might became irreversible when it becomes apparent), to find alternative funding to take over? I admit, I am not sure if the Council as it is would be qualified to do so, as I am not sure if they are already too deeply integrated in RH to be considered neutral by others (this is not accusation, but might be also the result of circumstances they are not in full control of, and this is just a weak assumption based on many assumptions and limited availability of facts).
IF Fedora is important for this eco-system, one can trust that the Linux community as such - as with Alma and Rocky back then - finds a way to mitigate and fill the gap. Maybe someone takes over funding (maybe even more than 1), maybe it is split among other communities, maybe something new rises, maybe something else. Otherwise, then so be it, but then it is at least a rationalized process that everyone can respond to. IF not, the world will survive too I expect
This also implies that your justification enters the realm of “what if” → it can effectively justify anything. But immediately, it has made it unclear to the community when the Council acts as agent of RH and when as agent of the community. This can be a serious issue, and already questions what the community is, and if and what is the actual leadership.
I make these points not with relative ethics in mind but static correlations: communities in the Linux world are key facilitators of knowledge creation and transfer. This massive problem solving capability usually correlates with certain institutions. And if the Council replaces them, the actual value Fedora used to create will cease to occur anyway, long before a funding ceases.
Also, I agree that this project must be a synergy, and offer a well return on investment for both sides: if this is no longer fulfilled for RH, I find it ok to leave, but making it clear to do so and seeking a handover (even if it is just to retain their reputation for OS projects), rather then to end up in subtle developments in which the community is not even involved when it gets step by step transformed…
This is just a (partially quite radical & surely massively simplified) perspective that considers a potential development, not arguing this must apply just because of this one case, and it is only one interpretation of the reality, next to other realistic interpretations. But maybe worth to be kept in mind when evaluating cases like this or using justifications like that …