From my personal perspective (again, I am not speaking on behalf of my employer), I think the structure and rules used by ASF is intended to help the community gathered to build software in ways that are in keeping with the philosophy of the foundation as a whole (The Apache Way). I personally like this philosophy, but it may not be 100% shared with the community that is forming here.
In particular, there are a number of rules and policies that are intended to reinforce independence for the community of developers that come together to the ASF to build and release software as a public good. For example the ASF does not allow corporations to participate directly in Apache project management or other governance activities at the ASF; only individuals.
I think there is risk in adopting rules that were carefully crafted to work within, and promote, a very specific philosophical and social framework. Expectations may be set implicitly that don’t hold long term. And when expectations are not met, even implicit expectations, trust can be lost.
If we say “contributors = individuals” (as practiced at the ASF) and then adopt (even temporarily) ASF policies and rules that are designed to only invite individuals to participate in project governance, some may assume that the overall behavioral norms should be like an ASF project. And I would predict that the for-profit partners (if we adopt that term) in this effort are going to want to participate, and be part of some decision-making, that is excluded by the Apache Way.
I think you and I might share some core philosophy 
. Let me try to expand so you can agree or disagree.
I believe that initiatives that mindfully empower individuals to autonomously make high quality decisions are more functional and productive in practice. I am a big believer in self-organized, commons-based peer production of public goods (like open source software). This means that the individuals that are doing the work largely govern themselves, and find the best working methods organically over time.
This approach can feel chaotic, and there can be a natural hesitancy to lean into that. Instead, some want the safety of knowing who has power to make top-down, unilateral decisions. That is a practice that we have come to expect in today’s world of open source when companies, and for-profit corporate interests, are involved. But centralized decision-making is not part of the practices that have emerged around peer-production in the meshed networked world from which Linux and Open Source emerged—even when there is a “benevolent dictator” who is leading an effort. See Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm.
I think the majority of the feedback about governance, and a move to a foundation, seems to be about folks that work for companies getting comfortable investing their limited and valuable resources (people). I think this is an understandable concern when organizing production given the nature of the firm. It can be challenging to work through the “impedience mismatch” of organizing a team within the structure of a firm (i.e., hiring employees and assigning work) that then participates in virtual organization in a peer-production model. But I also might be reading something into posts like @dawnfoster’s that is not really there.
Personally, I believe that peer production of software is a powerful trend. If you can successfully set the conditions for peer production, it can be a significant tailwind for the effort, with benefits for everyone. But there are also corporate concerns having to do with bringing goods and services to market (e.g., trademark policy and enforcement), and handling operational aspects that are “downstream” of software production. There are matters that involve handling information that cannot responsibly be made public (embargoed security vulnerability coordination, legal disputes, code of conduct violation, and so on). Given the stakes involved, I imagine there will be reluctance to delegate the responsibility for these matters to others (or a committee) at present.
So, I think the thing to do may be to separate these concerns the best you can, so you can embrace as many of the benefits of peer production as possible.
I would like to participate in a discussion about this, but it’s unlikely that I would be able participate in a bootstrap committee if I were to be invited to be a part of it due to my other obligations. And I think it would be good to recognize the information availability gradients that can form when you organize a group to have a discussion in a forum that is not an open forum.