Document philosophy and process of syncing implementations with the exercise READMEs

[kytrinyx]

UPDATE: The discussion about how to resolve this was reopened—this issue is on hold until the linked discussion is resolved.

There's a very interesting discussion in exercism/discussions#2 discussing the problems around confusing exercise READMEs that don't always match the implementation of the exercise.

In particular, this occurs when we've discovered an inconsistency or ambiguity in a README, and then updated the README to clarify. Now we have a problem: some tracks chose to interpret the problem specification in one way, others in another. Now we have a README that clearly says one thing, and some implementations clearly do something else.

Updating all the implementations so that they match the specification can be a long and drawn-out process, because many people are involved, and some tracks don't have maintainers.

The discussion linked to above contains a great exploration of the problems and trade-offs, and also suggests a very practical solution.

This discussion should be boiled down to a short explanation of the problem, along with documentation about the process we should follow going forward.

This will likely link to the documentation about bulk issue creation, exercism/docs#10

[kytrinyx]

We reworked the entire process regarding exercise READMEs and no longer need this. See exercism/meta#15 for details.