The flaw I see in one day a month is rotating between people for problem solving. If you have 30 people work on progressing the same project, it adds a tremendo

The flaw I see in one day a month is rotating between people for problem solving. If you have 30 people work on progressing the same project, it adds a tremendous amount of overhead, and make it difficult to determine who should guide them or how they should be guided. It is very likely there will be disagreement each step of the way. Maintaining a momentum and direction would also be difficult. It would be much more effective to have 1 person working on the same problem for 30 days. Over years, the knowledge accumulated by one individual about the problem solved has a multiplying effect over knowledge distributed by 30 people, each having worked 12 days on a problem. Once a challenging problem is solved, and tasks can be assigned to implement the solution, with each task being clear and well-defined, that's when you can start assigning them effectively. When the solution is of value and convenient to implement, that is when people can come together and coordinate to serve a purpose that can benefit humanity as a whole. As a society, we would benefit by identifying solutions of value, and implementing them, and I think we have and will continue to get better at that, as demonstrated by increasingly unique financing models like venture capitalism, kickstarter, DAOs, better tools for collaboration, better ways of bringing people together over larger geographies to work together on the same problem and more.