I'm sure nobody wants useless meetings. But there's more than one kind of waste. We waste core developer time and energy making them participate in unnecessary bureaucracy. But we also waste core developer time when we have to revisit discussions every three months without resolution. We waste the possible input of new contributors when there's no easy route for them to participate. We incur waste, I believe, when there's no formal procedure for making architectural changes. Disagreements that could be settled by vote instead become personal, which is wasteful and hurtful. We waste the potential of the platform and the community when new contributors don't see an clear way to participate.
The volunteers have put in a tremendous amount of effort in the last few years; with a less ad-hoc goverance system we should be able to get more input and more progress from more people with less sweat and tears. The problems with the ad-hoc system are lack of predictability, dependence on a few people, and lack of transparency (even when everything is public, it's hard to find).
So I think we need more formal processes, but I agree with you Roberto that bureaucracy is a risk. I think that's why the TCL rules are so appealing - they seem to have hit a good balance with the rules on paper and in implementing them in real life.
I can think of more details for my suggestions which would address some of Roberto's concerns, but I'd like to hear from other people first. What specifically should we do in the next few weeks and months to formalize decision-making without adding waste?
