Hi everyone, I agree with Justin's points. While the intent of this proposal is great, we must ensure it fully aligns with ASF governance.
I will add some specific suggestions directly to the document. Regards, JB On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 10:04 AM Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
