It's not odd at all if you understand the purpose of SQLite's governance model. Much better than letting VC + SV rat fuck everything for solitary monetary gain.
That's basically the opposite of any other project where you pay to get support and a certified official build of the exact same code as open source releases, and if there's a private part it's paperwork you can show as proof of compliance for safety critical systems.
The purpose of SQLite's governance model is to be a cult, that only accepts members who share the same religion.
The software happens to be good. Getting it away from that governance and turning it into an open community sounds great. And that can happen while still maintaining high standards.
Can you explain your view more? Otherwise, this sounds like a motte-and-bailey game.
Full acknowledgement for the fact that the line between "religion" and "cult" is blurry, but "all developers of this project must share a common religion and agree to these monastic religious tenets" sure ticks some boxes on "extremism".
They are, of course, free to do so; freedom of association is their right. Others are free to judge them for it, and to question whether they should be using the resulting software. The license is open, the community is not. So, seeing a project come along that looks to build something more open (and it's really saying something when "project whose governance is owned by a company, but open to pull requests" is more open) seems like a positive step.
(Also, as a database project, surely they shouldn't be mixing church and state. ;) )