Apologies, this FESCo issue was created too early. There is still conversation ongoing in the Discourse discussion.

Discussion: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/179470

Please hold off on voting until the discussion is complete.

This topic is still ongoing on Fedora Discussions. Let's defer the FESCo decision until that cools off.

We have the "incomplete changes" ticket on the agenda for today, which probably is going to take forever as always, so I'm not including this on the agenda. But FESCo members need to catch up on the discussion if they haven't already. We should plan for having this on the agenda for the subsequent meeting.

We should plan for having this on the agenda for the subsequent meeting.

Let's do that.

This was discussed during today's meeting (meeting log starting at 18:13:55). Voting was moved to next week to give people more time to catch up on discussion and / or ask more questions / get more answers.

I've made material changes to the text of the change proposal based integrating discussion feedback intended to clarify intention.

1. The proposal now reads explicitly as intended to make it possible to enable the verified floss subset of FlatHub by default.

2. There is additional text in the scope section that provides discussion of a middle ground fallback scenario that allows the filter to be used and treats both full fedora and full flathub flatpaks as peer user enablable remotes. The fallback scenario allows room for the question of the default enablement of verified floss subset to be addressed as a separate policy question while allowing the filter to be implemented.

This was discussed during today's meeting:

INFO: Further discussion needed before fesco will vote on this topic. It will be discussed and voted on at next week's meeting.

see meeting log, starting at 18:09: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2026-03-03/fesco.2026-03-03-18.03.log.html

I posted a summary of discussion in https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/summary-of-the-discussion-about-filter-fedora-flatpaks-atomic-desktops-v2-proposal/182878.

I really don't want to ... erm, "discuss" this in a meeting again, so I'll just leave my -1 vote here in-ticket.

I'm done "discussing" this too. I feel like it doesn't matter what we say, it's not having a meaningful effect to the Change owner.

-1

Absentee ballot for -1 here too

As noted in the summary discussion, in my opinion this is nowhere near ready

Also we kept being told we are holding this up and yet clearly there is no consensus or any demonstrated improvement if this proposal is adopted...

At the 2026-03-17 FESCo meeting, this Change was APPROVED (+5, 0, -3)

FESCo also reminds the Change owners that this approval covers Atomic deliverables only and that other deliverables will need to be discussed separately.

Just as a note: the change as set now is a fedora 44 change. Did we really intend for this to land now? If so, it really would need to hurry before final freeze.

No. This needs to shift to Fedora 45.

@alking can you move this to f45?

It was accepted under f44, but I don't think that should be the case now.

This Change has been deferred from F44 to F45.

Note: The milestone on this issue reflects when FESCo originally reviewed this Change and is preserved as historical record.