🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <michaelr.706417773@suite.sw.oz.au> michaelr@suite.sw.oz.au (Michael Rourke) writes:
>In <96@quark.ansto.gov.au> frank@iris.ansto.gov.au (Frank Crawford) writes:
>
>>One of my main reasons for
>>standing for re-election as Treasurer is that it takes some time to
>>learn the various aspects of AUUG's finances and a change in Treasurer
>>after only a year would be counter-productive.

>Is this a problem of documentation or are the terms of office too
>short (for other positions too)?

Speaking as an ex-comittee member, the term was definitely too short to
achieve anything really productive. I used to be an avid reader of the
minutes, but that didn't prepare me for the void I was about to encounter.

IMHO, I'd like to see the committee modelled a bit more along the lines
of some of the overseas groups. I'm not saying we shouldn't do our own
thing, but I'm all for adopting good ideas.  One aspect that comes to
mind is the way in which the top four positions are filled. Some OS
groups will only fill these positions from current general committee
members, and some take it one step further saying the people had to be
on the general committee for a number of years prior. Whilst on the
general comittee, they would spend some of their time to help in the
running of the top positions.  The group I was speaking to, claimed
they very rarely encountered the sorts of problems being pointed out.

/sp