The role of the incubator is to actively oversite projects coming on board. Unless we have someone we can point to who is doing that active oversite and reporting any issues, then I believe we cannot (as easily) show oversite.
Doesn't work this way. At work, I show that I have oversight if I know what is going on and things go smoothly. To know what is going on we have status reports (that I'll ask for very soon), and for the latter we need more Mentors. Pointing fingers is not our goal, making things actually be done instead is.
Not pointing fingers - identifying that there are people meeting a responsibility.
And I've found that status reports are never sufficient to show active oversite in a work situation. If something goes pear shaped, and the first I know of it is in a report that comes every 3 months, things are not good. I like to know there is someone handling a project/situation who will report back as soon as something comes up that I need to know about.
What we do need *identifiable* Mentors that we can reasonably assure are following the project. For me, having them (auto)listed on this page [1] is enough.
Yes - I think that is the compromise position (I'm not 100% comfortable, but then that's the definition of compromise :>).
Cheers,
Berin--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
