Hi. Thanks for kicking this off so thoughtfully. Great to see these questions on the table early; getting alignment here will save friction later.
A few thoughts from my side: 1) Committer/PMC criteria: I'd lean toward the Apache Way standard of demonstrated merit rather than a strict technical bar. Given Magpie's nature, merit should be interpreted broadly from the start. Contributing a well-crafted SKILL file, improving documentation, or supporting the community is just as valuable as writing code. 2) Valuing all contributions: One umbrella makes sense here, and it fits naturally with how Magpie already works. Many meaningful contributions to this project don't involve writing code at all, so building that recognition in from the start seems right. 3) CTR vs RTC: I'm fairly relaxed about this one given that the project is already building AI guardrails for new SKILLs and has test coverage for most of them. That safety net changes the calculus a bit compared to a typical project. CTR with those checks in place seems workable, but RTC is still a useful default for more significant changes. 4) Voting rights: I'd suggest keeping PMC and committer roles distinct in terms of binding votes, following the standard Apache model. PMC members hold binding votes on releases and key decisions; committers have voice but non-binding votes. 5) Mailing list volume: A separate notifications@ or commits@ list for PR traffic is a pretty common and clean solution. Keeps dev@ focused on discussion and decisions, which makes it easier to stay on top of what actually needs attention. Thanks again for setting a collaborative tone from the start. Kind Regards, Justin
