Tom Paul:
It is hard sometimes to know exactly what should or should not be said here at GCA. In general, the further down the road we go discussing "project management" issues as opposed to "final product" - the actual architecture - the more problematic discussion becomes.
Part of me is always sympathetic when folks like Pat Mucci ask what are essentially "project management" related questions. Yes, they are interesting and quite relevant. But, the problem is that quite often the real inside scoop can't be discussed. The principals involved either don’t want to or are not authorized to do so. And, folks privy to inside scoop, probably really shouldn’t be the ones to tell the “real story”.
I got a kick recently when a regular contributor to this discussion group came on and argued that architect Bill Coore wouldn’t accept a job because of the proximity of better golfing land nearby that might show up the C&C team. Funny thing: a leading golf architecture journalist even came on to second his opinion. But, I knew from sources trusting me not to share confidential information that this speculation was entirely wrong. It’s one small example of why sticking to “final product” observations about golf courses makes a lot more sense than speculating about the “project management” aspect of things.
As for the specific case of Tom Doak and Oakmont, I’m merely saying that it is up to either the club or Oakmont to share any information about their communications and architect selection. It just strikes me as a private matter that we ought to leave to those directly involved.
P.S. I'm far from perfect in these matters, so I appreciate you not being offended by my comments.