I would not say “Jeff’s decision is final” is the model. Generally speaking, this is the model:
That is amortized across:
-
How many different Discourse instances are complaining / asking about this?
-
How many of these Discourse instances are paying customers, either ours or someone else’s?
-
What is the community composition of those Discourse instances? Large, small, specialist, generalist, cranky (I hate change), friendly (we love change)?
-
How strongly does the team feel this would help many (or all) other Discourse instances?
-
How in tune with the “Discourse philosophy” is this feature? Example: downvoting / next page buttons, very much not in tune; optional anonymous posting / export personal posts, in tune.
-
How strongly does the Discourse team personally like/want/need this feature?
This is ranked from strongest (#1) to weakest (#5+), so the more we see the higher numbers the more that particular thing is prioritized. This assumes the people discussing have regular visibility into multiple Discourse instances with different audiences, 5 to 10 of them ideally, but even 2 or 3 is good.
In the case where it’s kind of a UI or design thing where there’s no way to have a solution that can satisfy everyone, my philosophy is:
- Do the simple / clean thing whenever possible
- Gather basic feedback
- Try it for a while (live with it)
- Adjust it over time based on feedback from living with it
After a point, I do think you want to avoid having too much discussion and Just Try Something, and I’m fine with taking the role of the person who decides to arbitrarily move forward with a contentious decision. But this is limited to stuff where there isn’t any kind of real consensus, or significant disagreement among the minority.