Stack position: 2 of 7 — highest priority for council review

This PR defines how PowerShellOrg makes decisions. Please read it carefully and push back on anything that feels wrong.

What's in this PR

GOVERNANCE.md covers:

• Four roles: Steward (sole admin/tiebreaker), Council (all active maintainers), Maintainer (per-repo), Contributor
• Decision-making: Steward decides with 72h silent-assent for routine changes; seven decisions require explicit Council approval before action (adoption, maintainer add/remove, graduation, archival, governance changes, CoC changes, build stack changes)
• Comment windows by decision type: 72h for maintainer changes, 7d for adoption/graduation, 14d for governance/CoC, 30d for archival
• Maintainer paths: sustained contribution, adoption, Steward appointment — all require Council input
• Inactivity removal: 9 months + 30-day notice
• Succession: Council majority vote if Steward unavailable
• Lifecycle states via repo topics: status-incoming → status-active → status-stable → status-archived
• Graduation criteria (12mo active, 2+ releases, 2+ maintainers, etc.)
• Archival process (30-day window)

CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md — Contributor Covenant 3.0, adapted for PowerShellOrg. Reporting contact is a placeholder that needs a real address before publishing.

Council questions — please respond

1. 72-hour silent-assent window: too short, too long, or right?
2. Council-gated decision list: anything missing from the list of 7 that you feel should require council approval? Anything on the list that should be Steward-only?
3. Inactivity threshold (9 months + 30-day notice): does this feel right, or too aggressive / too lenient?
4. Graduation criteria: are 2+ maintainers and 12+ months the right bars?
5. CoC reporting address: what should conduct@powershellorg.example be replaced with?

Base: pr/01-init — merge PR 1 first.