Hey @anon10525910, thanks a lot for your questions and your constructive approach ! Please find some feedback below :
This wouldn’t impact iRobot’s growth, I think mainly for 2 reasons :
- A lot of work has gone and is still going into the project, which I support mostly on my own in parallel with my current occupation. I have personally never felt more committed to making it a success once this long incubation phase is finished. I also feel no particular lack of capacity to support all parts of the methodologist role, for a methodology I have spent so much time developing.
- The ability of the Coop to support any kind of product in the best possible way has never been questioned either, and I’m properly stoked by the energy that this proposal has gathered in the community already.
Yes, that is the correct interpretation of the proposed system.
The more this discussion progresses, the more I see the RIWG as the 1st opportunity to iterate on some kind of accelerator for internal products.
We could draw a parallel with the Work Team’s analogy of iRobot to an early self-driving car (kudos to @Metfanmike 
): I believe a Working Group or Pod structure could help making iRobot’s transition towards a flagship self-driving limousine smoother and quicker, by rolling out the strategies / tools developed by the established WG’s and shaping them around this particular concept.
There might be additional options to avoid extended overlap with the relevant WG’s, or creating a new WG for the incubation of each new internal project : for example, after 1 or 2 iterations, a new community methodologist could take over the hot seat, and the WG be structured around a new product.