I agree Governance should be a focus. Our website claims:

Governance

Developers, corporate supporters, and technology consumers all have a voice in decision-making.

The PGB has a responsibility to walk the governance talk. That’s the top-down view. If it delegated it to the TSC, the PGB is still accountable if the TSC hasn’t done anything. If nothing else, each project should have a bottom up of how they are governed today. Who approves PR’s? Are there different roles (eg Maintainer) and how are they selected? Are there project meetings that prioritize or approve whatever? Are they open to all? Which governance model (from in https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/understanding-open-source-governance-models) is followed. And all this should be written somewhere. Stixshifter has a half decent ‘how to contribute’ but it doesn’t mention governance and how it’s done. Eg anybody can submit a PR – but can anybody approve a PR? People won’t contribute if they feel a project is controlled by a corporation or an opaque bunch of insiders.

What is the current state of the TSC? IMHO there should be a correlation between projects and some of the TSC members. For example each project should have two maintainers (ideally from different companies, approved by PGB) and they are on the TSC representing their project. Ideally there would be some additional TSC members as well taking a more ‘across projects’ approach.

Is the architecture group a part of the governance process? Is it a committee of the PGB or of the TSC or something else entirely? It is not mentioned on the website governance page.