I think the two-venues approach (code-specific on codeberg-or-equiv threads, holistic on discourse-or-equivalent public forum) is the right balance. I also work with multiple other __IP processes at my dayjob and some of them suffer from only one venue (non-specialists ignored), or too many venues (following two IPs becomes a fulltime job, no way to combine streams like RSS does).
Case in point: on another thread here, people have been trying to think through an exhaustive list of user-stories for account migration and UX expectations thereof. @tchambers found something almost exhaustive in the wild, written in the form of a personal essay and published on a personal blog, containing this delicious line of catnip for the governance-nerds like myself:
We shouldn’t underestimate how shouty github can feel to the vast majority of earth’s non-backticking population, or how intimidating a specialist/inward-facing venue like socialhub can be, no matter how inclusive and good-vibes the code of conduct, to someone who gets the details of mastodon and bluesky mixed up off the top of their head. High-quality input from the outside world is generally quite expensive to harvest pro-actively, like those “user interviews” that megacorps fund entire UX research departments to collect; it doesn’t just drift in off the street because we left the door open.