The problem as I see it at the moment is that there currently is
no solution that is on the table and there is no "magic dust"
(expression stolen). We need to start with realizing that we are
at scratch (I know some people disagree). However, I also think
that there currently are to many views on what the architecture
should be based on. In order to better understand this, I think
we need to look at the various architectural proposals made. This
needs to be made as a working group, and then from there we need
to work together on one solution.
s/architectural proposals/architectural approaches/
Again, "proposals" sounds like one is trying to foster competition,
rather than cooperation.
And while opinions will vary about what constitutes "architecture",
maybe we all agree that architecture is extremely high-level,
hence devoid of most/all implementation details.
I think that this is what I would like to work out. A common
understanding of what exactly want to put on the table to start with.
What to call it, and how much details.