And the Linux mailing lists are a great example of what I mean - deciding what to do and why is a huge upfront discussion - one they do in the open. but it's a

And the Linux mailing lists are a great example of what I mean - deciding what to do and why is a huge upfront discussion - one they do in the open. but it's a crap backwards looking method for a summary. Most businesses hide the upfront discussion (or at least keep it to a smaller set of people who have often conflicting incentives for decisions as well (we tend to refer to this as politics but that's a bit like fish moaning about water.) Anyway the point is that Linux shows how to make good decisions in the open (usually) - a process that I think most would 10x good decision making in most businesses but also lead to huge other sets of problems (worth it in my view but ...). But Linux does not have a simple way of post-hoc justifying the decisions unless one reads the threads (which is where the recent post of open source journalist at lwn was a great idea) But things like Jira, external ticket stores are good at providing a hierarchy to post hoc justify the decision - even if they are a terrible way to plan forwards. So the ideal I guess is some kind of open architecture discussion upfront and some kind of extract and rebuild the rationale from commits (ie in house journalism?)