Decision
Let the system grow organically. Anyone can contribute, even artifacts that look duplicative, and every component is shown to everyone at once, at every state and every level of quality. Maintainers define what quality means and transparently mark which components meet the standard, without gatekeeping any component away from the teams that need it.
Alternatives Considered
Experts curate the catalog down and gatekeep what ships
| 👍 Pros | 👎 Cons |
|---|---|
| Fewer components, more visible consistency A clear, opinionated surface to point teams at |
The org distrusts decisions that miss its real needs Adoption suffers when teams feel unheard Hides the true spread of usage instead of revealing it |
Freeze the system and let teams fork
| 👍 Pros | 👎 Cons |
|---|---|
| Stops the sprawl immediately | Fragmentation across the org No shared visibility into what exists Loses the value of a shared system |
Reasoning
A design system that hides the mess hides the truth. If an organization genuinely needs 20 buttons, forcing it down to a few without accounting for why breeds distrust and tanks adoption. Growing the system organically, where anyone can contribute and everything stays visible at every level of quality, turns the catalog into an honest audit of the organization itself. Maintainers add value by transparently marking what meets the standard rather than gatekeeping access, so teams can adopt, adapt, or improve what already exists instead of rebuilding it. And when leadership can see all 20 buttons at once, they can decide whether to keep investing in all of them or prioritize reducing them, a call they simply cannot make without that transparency.
Why it mattered
Transparency, not curation, is what earns trust. Showing every component honestly, with quality made visible instead of enforced by a gate, lets teams help themselves and lets leadership make real investment decisions. Order can still emerge, but as something the organization can see and choose, not something imposed on it.
All decisions