In the case of a software developer community, being able to converge on a technical approach is key. Having too many opinions on how to approach things may cripple development, so there is balance to find between a good deal of diversity to spark creativity and too much divergence of opinions that may hinder development.
Look at the ActivityPub support in Discourse. The discussion started years ago. At first it was refused. But insistence and perseverance in trying to shape a proposal made it so that the Discourse team accepted to give it a shot and delegated the task to the Pavilion team, here we are with a working ActivityPub Plugin that slowly integrates features that were first considered impossible or detrimental to Discourse. As the plugin matures and ActivityPub support gains traction, the community also changes shape.
But maybe I’m digressing too much. When I wrote about NIH syndrome, I was specifically thinking about such situations where a ticket exists for a feature, and someone picks it up and provide a totally unexpected way of approaching the problem, that does not match the usual way of doing things in the software project. Maybe this approach would encourage someone else to try another completely unusual way, and instead of bringing focus to the development it would end up scattering effort without much direction. In such cases, usually direction is more important than diversity, but then, this could as well be the opposite (such as the ActivityPub support in Discourse…).
I hope this clarifies my point, although it may not. I’m unsure what AI would do of it. 