Graphics such as tiles should be left out for the beginning since everyone's opinions differ. We should change that up later if people feel it's really taking away.
That being said, a nomination must be made for the "leader" of this project through a community vote out of a group of individuals who have volunteered for the job (or we can let Pokemon masters do it for coming up with the idea, though it's not original). Maybe at the end everyone who participated can have a nice shiny emblem and a mention in the credits for some incentive :D?
A lot of those things could be taken care of if it gets off the ground under a decent leadership structure with planning and consultation. I think even now it would be too early to decide on the progression of what should be discussed first, second or third apart from the formation of a group of leaders.
There can always include the aforementioned hackers in one way or another, be it as writers, assigning them to smaller scripts, mapping jobs, etc., or just as those who make and vote for decisions on various matters. Sure, quality is important, but if we lose sight of what the project set out to be in the first place, is there really any point in making it?
I feel that the idea of partnering/workshopping would really benefit the community as a whole, as well as to reduce the amount of required micro-management for the higher-ups.
Yup, I feel that including a way to help newer hackers and help integrate them to the community would be really beneficial in the long-term. They might not have the skills starting out, but being in a team environment and remaining under the direction of a mentor-like figure would be very helpful for them to learn the ropes and maybe even contribute something of their own when its all said and done.
American democracy is only one way to have a system of government and quite frankly, the notion that what works on a large-scale (A country of over 300 million people) would work on the small scale (~20 people) and vice-versa just doesn't seem to be correct. When you factor in the idea that everybody can talk to anybody on the internet as we are not restricted by distance (only sleep schedules) it makes less sense to restrict people from having a say when attempting to create a democracy. Here we're not limited by the enormous size and expense of a census that somewhere like America or even relatively smaller countries like Australia would have to shoulder if they wanted to get the ideas of the majority of their citizens, which is why they have representatives. At this size, a tribal system where there's a chief, specialists and volunteering workers each with a vote seems fine to me since ideas can be exchanged quickly, fluidly and there's still a sense of order.
If tribal democracy doesn't work then we could try a few other forms of governance: How about an Anarchic system where people can add an update of whatever they want, whenever they want with no checks or reasoning necessary. We could also have a Dictatorial system where if a member doesn't present their work in high enough quality within a time period they're banned exiled to Siberia. Or we could have a Theocratic system where we all pray to the great Masuda for guidance while our Holy Priest of VBA leads the parish to the promised hack. While I'm obviously joking with these examples, the fact is that there are many ways to create a group, so why not try to make it as inclusive as possible?