[clarkevans]

I think the worse-is-better philosophy is not well encapsulated with the 4 priorities given. Perhaps it is 4 completely different priorities. Here's a strawman.

1. Minimal -- the design and implementation must be the smallest as possible, especially the scope (which should be deliberately "incomplete")

2. Timely -- the implementation must be delivered as soon as feasible, even if it comes before the design (get it working first, then figure out why)

3. Relevant -- the design and implementation must address important, unmet need, eschewing needs that are not urgent at the time (you can iterate or supplement)

4. Usable -- the implementation must be integrated with the existing, working and stable infrastructure (even if that integration causes design compromises)

The other dimensions, simplicity, correctness, consistency, and completeness are very nice to have, but they are not the primary drivers of this philosophy.

[AnimalMuppet]

That seems like a fairly solid strawman.

I would say that Timely and Relevant drive Minimal. I would also say that Minimal and Usable are in tension with each other.