A file available for download is not necessarily a version the project stands behind. Release governance separates preparing a candidate from authorizing an official release. It identifies who coordinates the work, what must be checked, and whose approval is required before publication. Maintainer delegation determines which contributors may exercise those powers.
Apache HTTP Server assigns a release manager and requires formal approval of a release candidate. Preparing the files and accepting them as an official project release are separate responsibilities.
An official version is a promise
A small public-data project might prepare a candidate dataset, ask contributors to check important changes, and have designated maintainers authorize publication. Users would know which version is current and which earlier material it replaces.
Checks need to cover the project's actual commitments. A technically working package can still lack documentation, migration instructions, or required notices. The release coordinator makes those dependencies visible rather than assuming that finishing the main artifact finishes the release.
Approval does not guarantee the absence of defects. It establishes that the project followed an agreed process and accepts responsibility for the published version. A plan for corrections, withdrawal, and urgent updates is therefore part of credible release governance. The process converts scattered contributions into a shared public commitment with an identifiable owner.