Finding make work is inefficient. Especially if you hire them knowing you have 0.8 FTE, but find they lack the experience to perform a quarter of that.
It's better to figure out the work in order of importance (I.e we must achieve this by year end, or this is not so important) ten figure out how to fulfill it. But from the listed work so far, there is a lot lot less non-specialist work than justifies a full time individual. Tom Morton On 18 Jun 2012, at 19:39, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 June 2012 19:15, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> > wrote: >> On 18 June 2012 18:12, Thomas Morton <morton.tho...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> [things that make sense to me] >> >> I'd also like to see quantification. Is the current provable need 0.7 >> of a person or 1.5 persons? I'm still enough of a mathematician to >> think that it's unlikely to be a whole number (and I guess Tom D. is >> too). > > As a mathematician, I agree with you. Experience, however, tells me > that there is always enough work for between 10% and 20% more people > than you have! If you have enough work for 0.7 FTE, then as soon as > you hire someone you'll find another 0.5 FTE worth of work appears. I > don't think there is any real risk of hiring someone and not being > able to find useful things for them to do. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
