Yep. And my take on that would be to abandon the openness as ideological choice as it's impossible to implement "correctly" in project that depends on external parties to quite some extent, for very reasons I mentioned in my previous post. You cannot eat an preserve the cake at the same time, as you cannot communicate early with precise schedules when you don't have such information by yourself, which means you cannot succeed in crowd where openness is defined in ideological extreme with no middle ground. We in the community are not "masses" but small group of technologically oriented people who should at least have some idea what kind of problems may be involved with projects like this. Yet, it doesn't show anywhere in our more or less poisonous communication.

Practically this means that people may say they want choice and something "different" (or "unlike"). In fact they are not ready and willing for what it takes to actually have something done in different way. This can be clearly seen in conflicting demands and extreme negativity when those conflicting wishes cannot be met. If openness in projects is like that, it will never work. Hence, it's easy to come to conclusion that it's better not to try it at all.