A few thoughts:

- DNA = Design'n'Architecture.

- I over-emphasized the "kicking the shit" out of the team aspect of DNA. It's not that the DNA panel has a responsibility to do so, it's that they know it's their job to promote technical excellence and that's what their going to do.

- Anyone can poke holes in a DNA"decision"-- that's what engineers do well, have logical and measured arguments about the code. DNA decisions aren't mandates, but they are made by folks who are very qualified to make good decisions and recommendations.

- Compensation is not tied to DNA, but, in general, DNA team members do get paid more, but that's because they tend to be engineers with more experience.

- I don't consider tenure to be essential part of membership. I do think extensive experience with the product/technology is essential to have a well-formed opinion as well as respect of that opinion by the team.

- After reading all the comments, I really like the idea of rotating all sorts of levels of folks through the meeting to get a cross-pollinated opinion. Also remember, you build a DNA that suits your culture.

- Lastly, DNA exists best in a culture where the team wants to the technology to be world class and they want to learn how to do it. You eager come to the meeting because you want to learn, not because you have to.