It's really interesting to compare and contrast the Cabal method and the idea of design by committee[1]. This must be one of the very few stories I've heard of

It's really interesting to compare and contrast the Cabal method and the idea of design by committee[1]. This must be one of the very few stories I've heard of where a committee with a rigidly defined structure actually succeeds at pulling off something creative. The bits that really struck me were this: During Cabal sessions, everyone contributed but we found that not everyone contributed everyday. The meetings were grueling, and we came to almost expect that about half of the group would find themselves sitting through two or three meetings with no ideas at all, then suddenly see a direction that no one else saw and be the main contributor for the remainder of the week. and this: The Cabal consisted only of people that had actual shipping components in the game; there were no dedicated designers. Every member of the Cabal was someone with the responsibility of actually doing the work that their design specified, or at least had the ability to do it if need be. So, focusing on the quality rather than quantity of contributions makes sure that people don't just chip in ideas for the sake of chipping in. Also, making sure that the people on the committee are those who personally have to implement these ideas makes sure that everything is actually achievable. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee