At 11:54 PM -0800 3/11/03, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>But to call it a failure? That's too harsh. I think there are certainly
>problems in the basic model. You have a bunch of highly-motivated people
>associated with incoming projects. On the "other side of the fence" you have
>a bunch of unrelated volunteers. It's a recipe for status quo. With a more
>limited mission, and an objective progress meter, then the Incubator is
>about verifying process rather than needing to participate.
>
Incubator has had to hit the ground running, as it were. I think it's
done an adequate job, but Yes, you've hit the nail on the head.
On one hand, people want Incubator to be a simple rubber stamp, which
is unacceptable IMO. Yet, on the other hand you have people who
gripe and complain whenever anyone from Incubator makes suggestions
("All talk, no action", etc... blah blah blah). It's a tough line
to walk.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
