Hi, This proposal generally makes sense, but I think there are a few areas where the framing could be tightened to better align with ASF release and governance expectations.
The main point of concern is the distinction of released artifacts.. The proposal currently describes two binary packages and states that the “extended” package would not be released. From an ASF perspective, anything produced by official release tooling, named like a release artifact, or referenced in release documentation risks being interpreted as an release. It would be cleaner to treat catalogs-contrib as source-built extensions, rather than as an alternate binary distribution. Related to this, the phrase “relaxed requirements” may unintentionally imply lower quality or weaker accountability. What’s really being proposed is a change in the scope of CI enforcement, not a reduction in standards. In short, the direction looks reasonable, but tightening the language around releases and CI policy, should help avoid confusion later, especially during release reviews. Thanks, Justin
