Commentators have been doing a good job at everything from
finding small typos to finding definite mistakes to raising
larger "philosophical" objections.  The formal comments have
displayed a lot of care and competence.  Very divergent points
of view have been shared in the discussions, with some degree
of success.  Technical knowledge, such as of implementation
techniques, has been shared.  The editors have been
consistently addressed in challenging yet respectful ways,
with little or no obsequiousness.  Collegiality has prevailed
but not at the cost of suppressing individual style and
personality.

It says something remarkable about the world of Schemers that
such an ad hoc assembly of participants has held to such high
standards.  I think that anyone objectively studying "open
source methodology" who looks at the discussion from a
well-informed perspective will have to marvel, at least a
little bit, and wonder "How'd they do that?"