Jonas Lagoni

To me it is not so much about `private broker-based architectures` (since you might not have a broker) but rather those who use AsyncAPI to define the behavior of the...

@dret it is yes. Would be good to explain the semantics better for v2, do you want to [champion](https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#rfc-contribution-champions) this change? For version 3, those confusions should be completely gone....

> i can give it a try. what's the best process? Awesome 👍 There is no one way, but I would suggest having something concrete suggestion to discuss around, so...

What can we do to move this forward, is it only reviews we need @magicmatatjahu ? 🙂

I agree with everything here actually, @Fannon your example is plenty enough to work on the general "fix" for the parser 👍 Well explained. I think it makes sense to...

@Fannon as you already are in progress of championing this, do you see this as needing to be considered for 3.0?

@Fannon do you mind if I add you to the list of [champions for 3.0](https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/issues/691)? Joining the meetings would give you a good oppotunity to give updates and get feedback...

> I think it would be cool to ping anyone that is interested, even folks outside AsyncAPI org. We could have some mailing list or something, where release coordinator would...

As it is somewhat out of scope for this issue, I think you should create a suggestion in the spec repo with the concerns @magicmatatjahu.

What if we tagged all asyncapi/tsc_members once a release is stable, i.e. [almost ready to merge as in this issue](https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/issues/675)? That way all maintainers have a chance to update the...