I wish I'd written this:

Unfortunately, what the CNCI document describes sounds like the opposite of innovative, which isn't a surprise, given that the impulse to conceive and develop it entirely in secret was the opposite of democratic. In the end, there's no better way to stifle innovation than to let a single entity control it. But that's the kind of wrong-headed groupthink that takes root and grows in small groups that are restricted by excessive secrecy.[1]

This is exactly why I think the secrecy of ComCom - and the WMF public relations efforts in general - is stupidly wrong. It discourages innovation, and attacks constructive criticism. And it does so for no measurable benefit.

If you are not doing wrong, transparency can only help you. Living in a fishbowl can be disconcerting, but if you develop a thick skin and work directly toward [[SMART]] goals - avoiding digressions and distractions - you accomplish much and gain a reputation for honesty and resolution.

Are there topics which should not be discussed publicly? of course. But nothing else should be confidential, full stop.

English encyclopedia articles should be understandable by non-specialist native speakers. If the topic or concept cannot be given a generic overview readily understood by a layperson, it is not a topic to be included in a general encyclopedia.

[[L'Hôpital's rule]] clearly fails this metric.

(The counter argument - that a specialist encyclopedia may cover its subjects at any depth - is a [[strawman]]. A specialist encyclopedia has a targeted audience; it is in fact the definition of such a work.)