Rationale for choices

One of the things I discussed with Christoper earlier via Slack is that I didn't agree with some of the positions taken in the style guide. That's not a criticism of the guide; in fact, I think that the chain of maintainers for this guide has gone to great lengths to ensure that the guide is community driven.

However, I think that the guide can be improved by presenting the rationale of why the guide adopts each particular choice it does. That way, when someone expresses disagreement, they can present a counter-argument to the current choice that can be evaluated by the community. That will make future discussions like #116 easier since the evaluation happens without having to dive through "why was this decision made in the first place; what was the rationale?"

Swinging to the opposite side, I think it would be good to have a note at the top stating that we are presenting a community-reviewed set of options that allow for cohesion and a starting point. I realize that's partially addressed in the "Getting Involved" section, but I just think it would be good for people to see it when they first start reading the guide. We're not intending to create solemn law that must not be violated upon pain of exile. Or as I was telling @christopheradams, this ["is more what you call guidelines than actual rules."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GMkuPiIZ2k)

Review the style guide sections discussed in the issue and the existing “Getting Involved” section, then compare the unresolved rationale questions with issue #116. Done means the guide explains why its choices were made and clearly states near the top that they are community-reviewed guidelines rather than absolute rules.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.