There are sime issues here, I think.

a)
When withdraw the installation guide we also adjusted the "official" responsibility to the practice already in use.
Server, CoreOS, IoT, Arm, Silverblue already had written their own installation guide and the respective WGs are maintaining it since his. The main argument is, they are those who know the details and the overall concept. Someone else can't write it. The question is, what the Docs team wants to do here - besides providing the infrastructure for publishing. Of course, every user should contribute and be able to contribute. But the review is the responsibility of the WG. And at least for Server that works.

b)
Cloud and Workstation have either none (Cloud) or a very brief installation guide (Workstation). (The Cloud guide on read... is from 2016 as far as I know). Who should write an installation guide if not someone who is either a member of the WG or at least intensively involved in some other way and knows exactly the discussion about the concept and further development? User who are not intensively involved in maintaining and developing the Edition can improve, supplement and clarify documentation. But they can't develop documentation from ground up.

c)
We have already an overview where to find the guide for which Edition, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/latest/getting-started/ Maybe we need to add something to this page?

I can think of installation process into two parts. 1. Standard installation, 2. Edition/variant specific installation method. I'm talking about 1. Standard installation, which is described in Red Hat flavored OSes (including Alma, Rocky and so on). I guess you are talking about both. If so I agree with you. But, for standard installation, we could have three or four installation methods - Anaconda GUI installation, text-based installation, Kickstart/custom policy and offline installation.

For standard installation, it is not up to each SIGs/Workgroups. It needs to be coordinated by Docs and other work groups. I'm not suggesting the guide for each edition/link here and there. No to c)

About b), what is the point of bringing up cloud here? It is an exceptional case.

Standard installation, which is described in Red Hat flavored OSes (including Alma, Rocky and so on).

I don't know the latest version of those. But as far as I know, they have no edition, they have nothing comparable to CoreOS, Silverblue/Kinoite or Workstation. They have a standard installation, which is something like our server installation with various adjustments, e.g. a Gnome GUI turning it in something similar to our Workstation.

for standard installation, we could have three or four installation methods - Anaconda GUI installation, text-based installation, Kickstart/custom policy and offline installation.

Yeah, all these variants are present for Server, none of the other uses it. Workstation uses a very small subset of Anaconda to install from live system. E.G. Workstation and Server use the disk partitioning step. But in detail it's so different, i guess you end up with two different articles.

A possible use case may be the everything DVD or netinst. But you would end up with a Server or Workstation which no one would support, at least neither the Server nor the Workstation Working Group.

what is the point of bringing up cloud here? It is an exceptional case.

It's not exceptional, it is a supported Edition. And it uses yet another installation method, completely different from Anaconda, life CD, ignition, etc.

Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. May be I''m wrong. But given your shifted interests, you probably wouldn't want to work on it. If that is the case, so no one is concerned with a realization, we should close the ticket.

I have to drop this, sorry as in the thread below.

https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/86435/3