So this whole post boils down to something like: “only debate decisions that might have big impacts.” I don’t really see what’s interesting about that idea.
Actually doing what the author describes is often impossible except in an intuitive way. How could you know a priori which decisions might have big impacts? On a project of any complexity you need either deep specific experience or a very accurate working model of the entire project. You aren’t likely to have either.
This has been previously covered in depth, even in software, although of course it could possibly be improved.
Painting the bikeshed is one example: http://phk.freebsd.dk/sagas/bikeshed/
And yet, many people might agree with it but still debate trivial matters
Click to read more (28 min read)