Some people take this exercise seriously. JohnLim describes the result of the vote as "excellent guidelines", while Paul Gielens adds his own vote. Others are more critical, including David Anderson and Rob Diana.
To my mind, even if you could collect up the most experienced people in the software world, I distrust the idea that you could get a coherent and meaningful set of architectural principles from a vote.
Architectural principles must come from reflective practice and/or grounded theory. For example, I can derive layering from a differential theory of change, as follows.
|Purpose What is layering supposed to achieve? ||A well-layered artefact or system is more adaptable, because some types of variation can be accommodated within one layer without significantly affecting adjacent layers. |
|Form What is the underlying structure of layering? ||Boundaries between layers represent step changes with respect to some form of variation, from some perspective, such as |
|Process How do layers get established? ||Layers emerge from an evolutionary process, in which a series of small alterations affect the architectural properties of a system or (often unplanned and unremarked by the so-called architects). |
|Material What is the source of a particular layering? ||Layering comes from the experience of variation. |