Hi Jake! This is a really good question, and one that we haven’t had the resources to document in the past. To properly answer your questions would probably require a full day workshop (we’d be happy to come to Leipzig if you invite us, especially now just before Yule 
), but to try and answer really quickly (with lots of reservations):
- It’s up to the editor group when to publish, based on the consensus of the reviewers and the editors’ experience. The team is the reviewers. In practice we operate as a do-ocracy (ie those who do something decide how it’s to be done), so we don’t have predetermined requirements about a size or composition of the reviewer group for each archetype. We sometimes use the requirements set down by the Norwegian National Editorial Board for Archetypes to guide the international reviews, for lack of a formal international editorial board.
- The two most synchronised CKMs are, as far as I know, the international and the Norwegian CKMs. The Norwegian team try our best to keep our Norwegian archetypes in line with the international ones, and we also run reviews internationally in parallell with Norwegian reviews when we have new requirements. Because we need to have an archetype owned by our Norwegian CKM to be able to run content reviews in Norwegian, all our published archetypes are copies and not just federated instances. In a perfect world, IMO, we’d have only one CKM with “localisation” domains where the same instance of the archetype could be translated, reviewed and published in that language for that localisation. I wrote some more about this in 2020, here: https://discourse.openehr.org/t/throughts-about-federation-of-ckms-and-the-future/587
In current practice though, we copy archetypes and translations back and forth between CKM instances. It works, but it’s more labour intensive than it would have to be with the kind of functionality I outlined in my linked post.