> If you're an organization trying to do something with/for the project,
> and you get two widely divergent answers from two alleged
> representatives of the project, then what do you do?  Pick one?  (not
> necessarily 'safe' -- what if you base something important on the
> wrong answer?)  Spend the time to figure out which is right?  (that's
> the right answer, but it has an up-front cost.)  Punt?

You pick one.   But placing the responsibility to make the choice on
one or a few individuals hasn't worked very well historically, has it?
As a whole, I think we are sufficiently egoless and intelligent to
make good choices.   Individually, we all have blind spots and
opinions that can override our common sense.   Also, if you make one
small group of people make all these decisions, they tend to get
cranky, and their output (criticism) tends to be of low quality (it
pisses people off rather than motivating people to fix the problems).

Better to structure things so that these sorts of problems don't come
up.

			       _MelloN_