I've been reading the cdent and jeremy diary entries regarding the AgendaMaker stuff that Chris has been writing. It's an interesting conundrum, how information should move in an organization. It's obviously an evolving process.
The issue that both are getting at (it seems to me) is whether information in an org should flow heirarchically (that is, up to a manager level and then nav the tree back down in a prioritised way), or on a peer-to-peer level. What does seem to happen, it sounds like at their org, is that the information flows are discussed in an either or way. I don't expect that Chris is plotting things in that way, but it certainly sounds like the org-voices do.
Of course, in a healthy org, there can be hybrid approaches. Chris seems (based on discussions with him) to feel that agendamaker can be used to direct but not drive discussion. This may be true, and thus it becomes a more subordinate item than it is being perceived as - less a threat to the standing order of things than it seems presently, but more an enabling tool.
Oughta check out the code. Looks interesting and like something we can use, but I'd want to see more integration with workflow (and messaging, given my own org's focus).
There's still a lot of rumination to transpire on this. I think there are deeper issues I still feel I should comment upon.