On today's call, I heard a few ideas about how to improve our process. I think I have an idea that could address a lot of our concerns. Please comment and help me see whether there's anything to it?
I heard that we would like to consider several things: champions for each application, business model descriptions, mentoring teams up for a second try at funding later, one-page profiles of the applicants, pre-application interviews, separating team from concept rankings, make better use of teams who contribute multiple times, and trying to push a presumption of project durability rather than transience.
So what if we made a literal game of it? As I understand, there exist game mechanics engines which will reward people for doing the things that need to be done to accomplish a goal. What if we laid out a very detailed map of how to grow an idea into a company, and used the RHoK weekends to attract players? Done well, we could coerce the scoring system to any conclusions that we choose and therefore the framework could support any process that we determined was meaningful.
We would be something like a game publishing house that manages lots of little studios and helps their work to get into the hands of users. Then each project would be like a game title, worked on over time by a series of people. Their performance ratings could come from daily contribution, RHoK participation, forum posts and responses, etc. Each project would then have a staff role of champion, so that continuity could be maintained as the people rotate through. Then, from among the list of participants who connect to a project, the one with the highest ranking or score in the Project Contribution Game would be offered the lead role. The champion would mentor the lead until the lead is ready to submit for funding assistance; a threshold that would be embodied in the Project Maturity Game.
Anyway, that's the meat of the meta idea.
PS: One of the projects that comes to mind is the Project Game Project.