I have a Computer Science lecturer who says "There are as many development styles as there are developers", and while I usually take his ideas with a grain of salt, this is something that I believe to be true. And for this reason, a well suited and defined structure is one of the first steps in almost any team-based project. A non-structured project turns into a directionless mess, with no communication or common vision (the Mongolian Horde analogy - my apologies to any Mongolian members).
However, an overly structured project can stifle creativity and curb enthusiasm before the project can even get going (ie Dilbert). Therefore a balance between the two is an important goal. Hitting this balance is a very difficult task, especially with an emerging project, and getting it wrong can easily kill a project as fast as it started.
I am an avid fan of open-source software, and have read many books comparing open-source with traditional techniques (my favourite being "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond). According to what I’ve read, most successful open-source projects start as a loose 'forum' of ideas and prototypes, and only transform into a full blown project later, after a structure has naturally been allowed to develop.
In this light, I think that we should not be in too much of a hurry to become a 'project' with a sub-committee and a treasurer, but rather to remain a forum/discussion group for as long as is necessary to naturally arrive at a feasible structure. Don't forget, that before this forum, there was no place to even discuss DIY flash triggering with so many like-minded individuals, so perhaps we should see what implications this large step forward has, before planning the free upgrade to the Pocket Wizard.
Anyway - This is just my 1am rant, I would love to hear everyone else's opinions on the subject.
.... what can you do?!