A volunteer group can accumulate rules long after anyone remembers why they were introduced. Each new problem adds another instruction, until organizing a simple outing feels like applying for a permit. Minimum specifications asks which constraints actually need to survive.
The Min Specs exercise begins with a shared purpose and a deliberately extensive list of requirements. Participants then test those requirements against the purpose, removing ones they judge unnecessary. The result should leave people room to choose their own methods. Essential constraints can function as principle-based norms rather than detailed operating procedures.
Freedom depends on keeping the right constraints
Imagine a walking club reviewing its arrangements. Knowing who is responsible for checking everyone has returned may matter greatly. Requiring the same announcement format for every outing may not. Removing the latter can free organizers to adapt without abandoning the former.
The exercise depends on who understands the consequences. A rule that looks pointless to an experienced organizer may protect newcomers or preserve knowledge of a previous failure. People affected by its removal need a voice in assessing it.
Fewer rules are not automatically better. The aim is to make essential coordination clear enough that people can act freely within it. If a constraint protects safety, access, or an obligation the group cannot waive, its importance does not disappear because a workshop finds it inconvenient.