Hi On 05/02/12 19:05, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 11:56:09AM +1000, Robert Brockway wrote: >> Jonathan, please add the item "Discussion of back office support" to >> the February meeting agenda. I believe this should fall within >> general business but don't mind if you put it in another category. >> >> My intention here is for the board to discuss this topic, not to >> make any firm decisions during this board meeting. > > I have added this, but the previous approach has been that such > discussion should take place on the lists beforehand, rather than a new, > free ranging discussion being begun at the meeting itself. > > My main concern is that we lack definition of "back office support". > What tasks do we expect this new resource to carry out? You say: > >> I envision that this office assistant would report to the Secretary and >> principally provide support for the Secretary and Treasurer. > > but I haven't seen anything from Michael stating areas he would like > help with, nor have I encountered any areas myself that I think would be > greatly aided by another pair of hands. > > I'm not saying this because I'm against the idea, I just think that we'd > need to have at least a rough set of defined tasks that we think are > pain points now (or will become so as we grow) that help would be useful > with. >
Personally I have been thinking in a different direction - as an approach towards handling the current quick growth of SPI. Like Noodles I'm not against the idea of 'back office support', but I believe that some slight organizational changes could fill some of the possible gaps. One such change could be that each of the member project would get a "contact-director". This would be a more pro-active approach in which the individual SPI member project would be in an ongoing dialogue with one identified director/member-of-board. This would hopefully make it easier to maintain the connection between SPI and project, and on an ongoing basis offer advice (and suggestions for development). SPI member project a very different in terms of size, organizational form and maturity - and I believe there is room for more direct interaction between project liasons and SPI directors. This does likewise relate to the more general question about; in what directions SPI itself shall grow? SPI been a structure which partly came alive due to Debian needs (and this is not placed in any negative connotation), but I think it would be positive to look at the current situation and see if things are in sync? Chz > > _______________________________________________ > Spi-general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general -- Gregers Petersen Relationship manager, layer 8 and anthropology glp on irc _______ ________ __ | |.-----.-----.-----.| | | |.----.| |_ | - || _ | -__| || | | || _|| _| |_______|| __|_____|__|__||________||__| |____| |__| W I R E L E S S F R E E D O M ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT (bleeding edge) ---------------- * 1/4 oz Vodka Pour all ingredents into mixing * 1/4 oz Gin tin with ice, strain into glass. * 1/4 oz Amaretto * 1/4 oz Triple sec * 1/4 oz Peach schnapps * 1/4 oz Sour mix * 1 splash Cranberry juice ------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
