Ok so I'm sure this has been debated since the beginning of these instrument's history, but there are two instruments in question that really do not share that many qualities with their section.
I have been pondering this and I think there are really three ways one could organize an orchestral score.
1. The way we do now - by family
2. A more choral approach, arrange them the way they fit into the music, whether soprano, alto, tenor, baritone, or bass
3. A new family grouping, which I think makes more sense

Well the only thing wrong with the way we group them now is that a couple instruments don't really fall into families.

Take the trombone for instance. All of the other brass instruments are valved, and they can all be played by one person without changing valve order. They just read the music like they normally would, the transposing is automatically.

All of the woodwinds also share common ground. Fingerings are the same (except bassoon), and all have reeds (save the flute family).

The choral approach makes a lot more sense at first glance, but there would be no standard - every piece would have a different order, and the order might even change during the piece.

I was thinking, maybe we should rethink the grouping of instruments. Have the flutes on top (like they are now) but not bracketed with the rest of the woodwinds. The bassoon and trombone don't really fit into either group, so maybe have them in between the brass and woodwinds, bracketed together in an oddity group?

Other than the fact that it would be too hard to change something we have used for hundreds of years, what are your thoughts on this? Doesn't it make more sense?

I'm not buying the trombone argument, honestly. True, it doesn't have valves, but its sound fits perfectly well with the other brass, and it reads music the same (even if the mechanics of changing notes isn't 100% the same). Besides, it's played the same mouthpiece-wise, which is what qualifies it as brass. Flute . . . eh, doesn't matter to me :-p

LoL
Well I play trombone, so I get the short end of the stick on the whole brass thing. I can't pick up the other instruments without totally changing my way of thinking

The same arguments that Nex made regarding trombone can be applied to bassoon. The sound fits perfectly with the other woodwind sections, it reads music the same and it has a reed mouthpiece which qualifies it as a woodwind. Oh, and like Nex, the flute doesn't matter to me

I don't think the flute matters to too many people lol

I just don't see why those instruments have such a different approach to the technique.
Why didn't they make them more similar?

Well, mostly because with the bassoon, it needed that shape when they first began to make it to achieve that sound and range. Much like a bass clarinet looks quite different from its higher-ranged brethren. The reason its fingerings are different is probably that the inventor wasn't thinking, "Let's make another woodwind like these over here." but rather, "Let's see what this sounds like." That means playing around until the holes can be placed to create the notes in our scale system.

With the trombone, it developed as a lower-pitched version of the trumpet. At the time it was brought into being, the trumpet had no valves, to they simply added the slide as a simple means of getting more notes. It wasn't until long after that valves were added to the other brass instruments. Perhaps a better question is to ask, "Why don't all the other brass instruments have slides?"

And I'm assuming you're referring to the mechanics of the valves and slides when you're saying technique, because the technique of playing is very similar in the bassoon and trombone to their respective families.

I think you're going about it the wrong way. You're trying to group instruments by technique instead of timbre and quality.

After all the percussion family is the most motley crew of them all. :p

"Why don't all the other brass instruments have slides?"

I like your thinking man
lol

Well I have only played a trumpet like once.
None of the others have I ever had a chance to mess around with.

I had thought trombones were the first to resemble their current models
I think they were called Sacbuts

Technically, if we are judging by timbre flute doesn't really fit in with reed woodwinds. It's more of a world instrument anyways. Just adapted.

This is a little off topic, but, another tbone related question.
Why is it that it is so hard to get good tone on trombone as opposed to baritone? I know trombone has a brighter sound to begin with, but most baritone players when they pick up a trombone sound really crappy. At least ones I've heard.
It's a lot easier to blast on a trombone than euphonium as well.
Was all of that intended, or just an unforseen drawback?

I'd assume it's the conical bore of the baritone/euphonium versus the cylindrical of the trombone. Those same baritone players probably sound fine on a Tuba, right? Tubas share the same conical bore shape as the baritone.

The larger bore of the euphonium makes it sound more mellow. The smaller bore of the trombone makes it easy to push air and create volume, but also makes the tone harsher.

I see...
So then why do the majority of trombone players sound that much better on baritone?

Is it because the bore of the baritone hides mistakes that have to be corrected on trombone (they are obvious) in embechure?

Because the trombone's sound is much more crisp and almost raw, to get a good sound you have to be that much more careful. So basically yes, a baritone/euphonium may sound "prettier," but to get that pretty sound on a trombone will allow you to sound amazing on a baritone/euphonium.