A recent discussion within the TiddlyWiki community has made me reexamine the community’s role in shaping open-source projects.

Many people believe that the open-source principle equals grassroots democracy.
However, I don’t think that’s a fair assessment.

While community involvement is generally important and valuable, it is also a double-edged sword.
For certain issues, opening the debate to the community at large can prove an obstacle to making progress. That’s because discussions involving a large number of people can easily get out of hand — especially if there is no tangible concept yet to base the discussion on.
Also, many tasks require a certain expertise, and should thus be delegated to qualified contributors. The wisdom of crowds (as described by Surowiecki) is no panacea, but only applies to certain kinds of decisions.

That is not to say the community should be excluded though. The entire process needs to be transparent — not only to avoid alienating contributors and users, but also because diverse opinions and perspectives are essential to achieving optimal results (e.g. to avoid common traps like coders’ tunnel vision).
But this involvement should be timed carefully. Gathering feedback on a well-thought-out concept will often be more productive than starting a discussion without a solid foundation.

Bottom line: In my opinion, open-source projects are more about transparency and a diverse assortment of skills, rather than forcing everyone’s direct involvement on every single level.

Thanks to Saq and Phil for their insights on this topic.
I’d be happy to continue the discussion in the comments…