Yes, this is good. The main thing for me is that no one entity, no matter how well meaning, can have complete control. ie there should be 2+ owners. I believe bluesky has 3 board members. Nostr needs to go multi-stakeholder too, to really be a community driven open protocol. The Ruby system, or any such simliar open source system (like bitcoin) would work too. Room for improvement.
Looks like a couple of days ago nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 reorganized the GitHub org and team for nostr-protocol. Is this what you’re talking about? I see 19 people in the team as having commit access.
I spent years in and around the Ruby on Rails community. They eventually developed rails-core which had a process for joining and leaving. While a protocol is different from a framework, this feels broadly similar. Rails wasn’t perfectly managed but it has worked for almost 20 years and handled a bunch of conflicts while staying open. Nostr feels broadly similar.
Discussion
Rails is an implementations; whereas nostr is not defined by the nips repo, nostr lives in its many implementations and the nips repo are useful as documentation on what can be expected, but any nostr developer knows this specs are very far from the chaotic reality of what lives on the relays