The "Mearls on Many Things" thread is on it's own track, but a brief check didn't seem to cover the thing puzzling me, namely, Mearls says in responce to a question in the interview:
Q: There’s a big thread on ENWorld about the math behind skill challenges. There’s been experience that shows that they work, but the math to prove that they are broken seems solid.
A (Mearls): Skill challenges are interesting, since they are not reflected in the written rules as they were intended. They started as more “combat” with intiative, etc., but eventually moved them to be more freeform. They were intended as more of a framework, not strictly mechanical. When planning a non-combat encounter, try to come up with options, different ways to play out while not stopping the game. (i.e. don’t build in a roadblock if they don’t succeed at the skill challenge.)
They want to address different ways to handle it without errata-ing. That might make it into a future DMG. Here are ways to do things differently, not “these rules are different.”
Okay ... and why exactly are the skill challenges not refelcted in the written rules as intended? I mean DnD 4E had a fairly long development process, so why did no one notice that the intention was not reflected in the final product? Why didn't Mearls notice? Seems kinda important. And if the intention was thwarted by the version that was printed in the rules, why not post errata showing the true intention of skill challenges? Mearls only seems concerned that they not be called errata.
And what does Mearls mean by "here are ways to do things differently, not 'these rules are different.'" I mean are they the same rules or not? Can the rules really work differently but not be different? He seems to be saying that what the designers intended with 4E regarding non-combat encounters failed to reach print in a form that could be understood or do what they intended, yet this is ok because you can use the same rules to achieve different results more like what they intended but without changing the rules or correcting any error or poor writing, as long as you buy the DMGII. WTF?
I thought "Skill Challenegs" were a major portion of the new edition and a key part of game play, yet this sure sounds like they were dealt with haphazardly and that the design team was indifferent to how they appeared in the final printing of 4E.