Much has been written in this forum of, on one hand, the "imperative of," and on the other, the "anathema of" formulating a committee-qua-committee, defined not by the program, but by some communally reached statement of purpose. I noted that it is foolish to insist upon choosing between a community-driven artifact and an artifact-driven community, noting that they are inherently co-dependent notions, neither well-defined without the other.
Nothing in this colloquy has led me to reconsider that view. I am more convinced than ever that a community defined by some theoretical purpose rather than an underlying program is doomed to irrelevance, and that an ossified artifact program to define a community is likewise doomed. The looser the structure of the community, the better and more flexible it will be. As I was reading some recent criticism of Cas Sunstein's "REPUBLIC.COM," the following 1992 quote by Dave Clark of MIT caught my eye:
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code."