> 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.
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.
> 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"?
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.
> 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.
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.
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