Does it help anything to look at this, again, as failure modes? One failure mode is a project that emerges from the incubator showing, well, gross signs that it 'doesn't get it.'
Another failure mode is that a group of people who really do get it, at the level of the broad principles, get into trouble trying to translate those principles into very practical matters, due to conflicting sources of authority and documentation. Talking about one of these does not invalidate the other as a concern. I have an complementary suggestion to Marvin's push for documentation. My request is for a much clearer channel of communication to the board. All too often, projects wind up communicating with individuals; some board members, some not. Those individuals are in an unclear state of headware. Board members are always free to express their personal gut reaction, but I find that much confusion results from mistaking a gut reaction for an _ex cathedra_ statement -- and, in the end, board members don't even own such seats. Only the board together can issue a binding ruling. Since we're talking IPMC here, perhaps the solution is for the VP to even more actively take the role of 'bring your troubles to me, and I'll take them up with the board if I can't settle it.'
