Lukasz Gornicki spent years as executive director of AsyncAPI, which means he has already run the experiment everyone else is still theorizing about — what a foundation actually does for a specification once the announcement is over. He is now part-time, and hoping to go full-time, at Open Source Europe, a Belgian association built as a European alternative to the US-based Open Source Collective. I brought him the question I have been carrying since I forked Spectral: where should a rule-set specification live. What I got back was not a recommendation, it was a set of distinctions. The Linux Foundation gave AsyncAPI intellectual property and trademark protection and very little else — protection that turns out to mean a free letter from a lawyer, after which you need a litigation budget you do not have. It funds no engineering work, which is why Open Source Collective had to exist alongside it. And one sponsor declined to renew specifically because AsyncAPI was part of the Linux Foundation. Lukasz walks the other options too — why Apache is the only foundation that will actually enforce a governance model on you, and the price it charges in your project's name; why Eclipse left the US for Canada; and what Open Source Europe can and cannot do today. Underneath all of it is the question he says has to come first, and that nobody in this conversation has answered yet: ask the people who would fund this what they actually care about, because open governance needs no foundation at all.
Correction, added after recording: in this conversation I say the German government reached out and that Germany is committed. That overstates it — Germany has made no commitment. The Netherlands is the only government with a published, documented dependency on this format, in the developer.overheid.nl post of 31 July 2026. Conversations with Italy are ongoing and nothing is committed there either.