1 Dec
2022
1 Dec
'22
5:11 p.m.
Iirc in meeting notes from the past month, a job description had been
drafted and multiple (3?) people familiar with the Omni situation had been
interviewed. The others were decided against due to not being sufficiently
qualified and/or not being able to perform other aspects of the role.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 4:56 PM Cere Misc via sudo-discuss <
sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org> wrote:
This does not answer my question or address my concerns. Patronizing
people who put forward the effort of reply to your request for comments and
dismissing their concerns does not encourage people to participate.
This is a false equivalence. I am also not applying to be a paid member
of a team who will be entrusted to manage the finances of Omni. I am not
asking that they "publicize" their name on "unnecessary" documents.
A
person entrusted with such a position can act in ways that can affect the
legal and financial reputation of any other member of the Omni board.
Asking for a real name, a written list of past work experience and
references based on a real name is not an unreasonable thing to ask.
This is encouraging. From my time sitting in on the delegate meetings and
reading the slack channel she does seem to understand "our situation".
What I am asking is about her experience in helping to remedy the said
situation. Given that we have already hired people in the past to help dig
us out of our current situation based on informal connections (and it has
not worked out well), I think it's a good idea for us to keep concerns
about prior experience in mind.
--
Lesley Bell
432-266-0397
zvezdalune(a)gmail.com
<http://lesleybell.com>
I propose that
the current proposal to hire Emily be split into 2
separate proposals. 1) to draft a job description for an Omni coordinator
in the spirit of what has already been initiated. Develop this job
description further, as needed, with the input from a variety of
knowledgeable people. 2) to use said job description to consider Emily
(last name?) as a possible candidate for consideration. For this proposal,
Emily should not be present to vote or weigh in due to (duh) obvious
conflicts of interest.
I worry that this is a needless expansion of the task at hand, This
isn't a glorious position that people are clamoring to get, this is a mess
that we need cleaned up. There has already been an extensive effort by the
financing committee to find qualified people to hire, and it hasn't worked
out sufficiently well. A proposal was made for the delegates to take on
the task of hiring someone to sort things out, and we've found someone
whose participation in the community has motivated her to offer to help.
At the last delegate's meeting it seemed like there was universal openness
to moving forward with a more concrete proposal, rather than expand the
search.
I recall Joe Lisner voicing a similar concern as I have in the last
delegates meeting I was a part of a couple weeks ago. At the very
minimum, I think we should split the proposal into two parts, as I have
suggested, to allow for discussion without the blindingly obvious conflict
of interest. I also think a real name should be required for any position
that comes with this much financial power. Can't even believe I have to
say that.
1) How much will be budgeted for this position
vs. how much money is
currently in our coffers?
The amount of money we expect to pay for this contract is small compared
to our other expenses, and the tasks we're trying to achieve are essential
to our continued existence. The finance committee has been paying people
all this time without oversight, including over $2000 to someone for
reading emails and learning quickbooks. If you are concerned about
spending, this is the last thing you should worry about. 2) All
people that are being considered for this position should submit
a resume with
references based on their actual name. Is "Toast" their last
name?
There are plenty of people doing good work for Omni (including on the
finance team) who don't publicize their legal last name except in documents
where it's necessary. Is your last name "Misc"?
3) If
prior experience and knowledge of Omni's financial/legal
operation is an
important factor in deciding who to hire, it would be good
to know more specifically what a candidate's activities with Omni were in
the past.
We can ask Emily more about her activities in the past, but I think
what's most important is a person's knowledge of our existing situation (as
well as their qualifications) and she has been in the finance chat and in
meetings, and in talks with Sarah, so I think she knows quite a bit about
our situation.
The above was me as a fellow Sudoroom member. As
our delegate, I ask
specifically what you want me to put forward to the delegate's meeting on
our behalf.
As a delegate who has been untrusted to represent the concerns of Sudo
members, please put forward what I have already proposed, and will now
restate:
That the current proposal to hire Emily be split into 2 separate proposals.
1) to draft a job description for an Omni coordinator in the spirit of
what has already been initiated. Develop this job description further, as
needed, with the input from a variety of knowledgeable people.
2) to use said job description to consider Emily (with their legal last
name) as a possible candidate for consideration.
For the 2nd proposal, Emily should not be present to vote or weigh in due
to concerns about conflicts of interest.
This question has still not been answered; merely, dismissed as
unimportant.
1) How much will be budgeted for this position vs. how much money is
currently in our coffers?
-jake
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list -- sudo-discuss(a)sudoroom.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sudo-discuss-leave(a)sudoroom.org
More options at
https://sudoroom.org/lists/postorius/lists/sudo-discuss.sudoroom.org/