Preamble

There is already a FESCo ticket open for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FilterFedoraFlatpaksAtomicDesktopsv2, but the owner states that these concerns are not within the scope of the Change, which is a fair position, so this second ticket seeks to address these questions. These unresolved issues are prerequisites or at least tightly connected with the outcome of the FilterFedoraFlatpaksAtomicDesktopsv2 Change, though, so I think FESCo should deliberate them before or concurrently with https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3549.

Unresolved issues

I see two primary unresolved issues related to Fedora Flatpaks, Flathub enablement, and the FESCo Third-Party Repository Policy.

1. Changes/FilterFedoraFlatpaksAtomicDesktopsv2 proposes to enable Flathub and then apply a filter to Fedora Flatpaks to favor Flathub Flatpaks. However, there is not a concrete technical proposal for the prerequisite first piece, on how (a subset) of Flathub will be enabled and how Flathub-by-default should interact with the existing opt-in fedora-third-party framework that already enables the unfiltered Flathub repository.

   FESCo should consider and vote on a concrete proposal (whether that's enabling the Flathub verified_floss subset or something else) and the necessary updates to the Third-Party Repository Policy. This issue could be the subject of a separate, prerequisite Change (similar to the connected NodeJS Changes that were approved together last cycle).

2. The Workstation WG has already decided to use a different mechanism to filter the default Fedora Flatpaks remote in favor of Flathub in this ticket. That decision seems to directly contravene the Third-Party Repository Policy's section on Duplicates and replacements and it also seems outside the purview of the Workstation WG to disable the outputs of another SIG --- the Flatpak SIG in this case.

   I believe FESCo should intervene and either enforce its Third-Party Repositories policy or request that the interested parties create a proposal to change them.

EDIT: It looks like I spoke too soon here. I apologize for causing any confusion. Above, I <del>ed the inaccuracies in 2. and edited the rest for clarity. Re. 2., Workstation's plans are apparently still in flux, and the WG has not agreed to enable Flathub by default and is aware of the Third-Party Repo policy. The current WG agreement only covers disabling Fedora Flatpaks, not enabling Flathub.