Ceki Gülcü recently wrote an interesting post on the Apache community model and its vulnerability in cases where consensus can not be reached with reasonable effort. Also the discussion in the comments is interesting.
Ceki's done some amazing work especially on Java logging libraries, and his design vision shines through the code he's written. He's clearly at the high edge of the talent curve even among a community of highly qualified open source developers, which is why I'm not surprised that he dislikes the conservative nature of the consensus-based development model used at Apache. And the log4j history certainly is a sorry example of conservative forces more or less killing active development. In hindsight Ceki's decision to start the slf4j and logback projects may have been the best way out of the deadlock.
Software development is a complex task where best results are achieved when a clear sense of architecture and design is combined with hard work and attention to details. A consensus-based development model is great for the latter parts, but can easily suffer from the design-by-committee syndrome when dealing with architectural changes or other design issues. From this perspective it's no surprise that the Apache Software Foundation is considered a great place for maintaining stable projects. Even the Apache Incubator is geared towards established codebases.
Even fairly simple refactorings like the one I'm currently proposing for Apache Jackrabbit can require quite a bit of time-consuming consensus-building, which can easily frustrate people who are proposing such changes. In Jackrabbit I'm surrounded by highly talented people so I treat the consensus-building time as a chance to learn more and to challenge my own assumptions, but I can easily envision cases where this would just seem like extra effort and delay.
More extensive design work is almost always best performed mainly by a single person based on reviews and comments by other community members. Most successful open and closed source projects can trace their core architectures back to the work of a single person or a small tightly-knit team of like-minded developers. This is why many projects recognize such a "benevolent dictator" as the person with the final word on matters of project architecture.
The Apache practices for resolving vetos and other conflicts work well when dealing with localized changes where it's possible to objectively review two or more competing solutions to a problem, but in my experience they don't scale that well to larger design issues. The best documented practice for such cases that I've seen is the "Rules for revolutionaries" post, but it doesn't cover the case where there are multiple competing visions for the future. Any ideas on how such situations should best be handled in Apache communities?