On Jan 13, 2013 11:46 AM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >... > Next down are the 'vice-chairs', currently known as the shepherds. > Each of these people is responsible for a group of projects, dispersed > across the reporting cycle. The shepherd, at least, tunes into the > reports, but also checks in during the three-month reporting period -- > particularly if we have identified issues that the project needs to > address.
When I came up with the shepherd process for the Board, I specifically made the assignments random. This was to prevent a Director from becoming accustomed/lazy with their assignment, and to ensure that Directors eventually get detailed insight to *all* projects. It also ensured that Directors *had* to engage at some level with report reviewing (I felt some Directors attended meetings without any reviewing; the shepherding helped to involve them more fully). Now, I'm not saying the two are the same. They share a name, and some general concepts, but the Incubator operates very differently. I do think the Incubator can reuse the idea of "somebody assigned to review in detail" rather than a normal cursory review. Anyway, I hope this background helps. Cheers, -g ps. of course, randomization also meant some sucker wasn't saddled with being the Incubator shepherd for life; it's a hard/lengthy review...
