- Location
- Under a Rock
Absolutely none, you say? Hmm, interesting.
Pfffft. Welcome back. I assume things worked out for you?
This is an excellent idea. 3 hours is a bit of an ask, but you would be surprised at the ideas 3 smart people can come up with when spending 15-minutes by-the-clock with a goal in mind, especially after being given permission to think unorthodoxly. (Sounds silly, but it's true.)
Also, rather than election, I suggest a lottery. Everyone interested in contributing would state so ahead of time (on a per-cycle basis), then should they be selected, commit to spending at least 15 mins doing their best to unbiasedly find failure modes, points of weakness, and ways in which others can hamper our plans.
To be useful, the determination would have to be done sometime between when we have clear frontrunners for plans and about a day or so before voting closes. For more important or sensitive plans, or when there are just multiple plans, we can select more than one person.
I strongly support the idea of a reviewer lottery, and I would like to enter the pool. Do we have a tool that we could use to organize it?
We also need some way to promote original thinking. @Vecht, if you think explicit permission to think unorthodoxly is enough, we can go with that. My only idea is encouraging the reviewer to go think someplace that they don't normally think.