So I had posted my thoughts to the LA list, but seeing everyone else is blogging their ideas, and not everyone interested in on the linux-aus list, I thought I’d blog too 🙂
I believe that LA has started doing more interesting things, and has become
more relevant for the community, and protecting the community rights (such as
the work on the FTA and such). I believe that it wasn’t sustainable for the LA
ctte to do everything themselves, which was starting to happen. Sub-cttes with
specific purposes, such as education, or press, or advocacy could migigate the
issue of sustainability as well as avoiding the issue of taking on an employee
in a volunteer run org. There are many orgs out there that have employees,
however LA can neither afford it, nor really has need, particularly when the
main time sink (LCA) is run by volunteers. Once an org takes on employees,
particularly a volunteer org with a democratically elected ctte, then I think
we would simply see more apathy from the volunteer positions as we have seen
happen in other organisations. Also what tends to happen when an org like LA
gets an employee is that things are not done in the most efficient way, as the
employee is incentivised to keep their job. I guess my example to compare with
is AUUG. Liz does an awesome job with AUUG, however she runs the conferences
and most processes are done on paper. LA has an LCA team every year to run the
conference, and most of our processes are automated, aka no paper. What LA
needs it a ctte willing to put in some time, and 7 people putting in some time
is a lot of time total, in which great things can be done. The main thing is
that if you want to run for the ctte, you are doing so in order to make a
difference, and to put in some effort. If the main role of the ctte is to
ensure the sub-cttes are rocking, maintain governance of the org, ensure all
the legal stuff is done, and to facilitate specific stuff the org has to do as
part of its consitution.
Anyway, I think the sub-ctte model works fairly well, and it means people
who are passionate about particular issues are working on them. We could
certainly pay for certain tasks if we can’t get them done on a timely manner
or don’t have the skills/time inhouse (such as some accounting work), but
taking on an employee means a whole different way of doing things, and
although it may be useful in the future, I don’t believe it is the right
time yet.
The burnout model isn’t such a bad one, having enthusiastic people get
involved, do a great job, and then pass on the job works great for LCA, so
why not for LA? At any rate, LA has only in the last few months started to
take on sub-cttes so I’m keen to see how this pans out before splashing out
on an employee 🙂 I think the model of 2 year terms for exec positions on
the ctte and one year terms for ordinary members positions is a good idea.
In response to Stewarts blog comments about volunteers not being employees,
it is quite a true one, however there is I feel a commitment expected from a
person elected to the LA ctte to follow through with what they agree to do.
If a person doesn’t want to put in any effort, it is fairly simple, don’t
run for the committee.