I am not sure whether this is an admissible question. If it is not, please close it.
Biblatex opens up the realistic possibility of highly complex citation systems such as those used in my field, law. It is an area very poorly served by existing tools, and in theory an area where LaTeX could be a brilliant tool.
However, as any style author quickly finds out, the complexity of these systems requires innovation. We have to work with non-standard entrytypes. And we have to use existing fields unconventionally, and to make heavy use of custom fields. The same, I think, applies also in other fields of humanities. Quite a lot of work is being done by several people, independently.
It is obviously not a bug, but a feature, that the end result of these labours are styles that produce different output. Different legal traditions and humanities disciplines have their own preferences, and the whole purpose of is to abstract these preferences.
But it is or will be a bug if the use of different fields and entrytypes is so idiosyncratic that
.bib files produced for one system are radically incompatible, even for sources, such as treaties, international cases, and EU cases, which are common to many different traditions. To take one tiny example, Tobias Schwan's juradiss package records, I think, the court that decided a case in the
Author field, whereas my work in progress currently uses the
Institution field. Either might be fine. But it will be a blot on the overall coherence of the system if some of us use one, and some the other, for it makes each
bib file style-specific.
Is there any existing mechanism by which this sort of decision could be discussed collectively, and existing solutions recorded, not in order to impose compulsory norms, but to help us avoid too Balkanised a system? If not, how could one be created, and what is the best way to have something lightweight and not-too-bureaucratic? As a lawyer, I'm depressingly unfamiliar with the tools for effective cooperation that others here have vast experience of.