🚀 go-pugleaf

As promised, the following is some hopefully constructive comments
which might have some relevance during the run up to the AUUG elections.

I have over the past few months attempted to obtain sufficiently
detailed figures from the AUUG about the running of the Winter 1991
conference. The latest numbers are not quite finalised, so I do not
know if it made a profit of a few thousand dollars or a small loss
of about the same amount. Unfortunately most of what I have to say
is predicated on some knowledge of the AUUG finances, as this
tends to put a limit on what is possible.

The basic figures are:
the conference loses $60k
the exhibition makes about $250k

ACMS gets 70% of exhibition profit, this yields about
70k for the AUUG, which means that we basically break even
against the conference loss.

We could go on for quite a while about how a reasonably well
attended conference (~400 attendees) which meets the expectations
of the organisers can make such a large loss, but few gain from
this sort of pointscoring ...

The bottom line is that there is approximately $200k available
for the organisation and execution of the AUUG winter conference.

My proposal is that the AUUG hire a "General Manager",
who has the following, (non-exclusive) responsibilities:
- Organise AUUG Winter conference;
- Market the AUUG;
- Organise and market the AUUG Exhibition;
- Run the day-to-day AUUG activities;
- Liase with the AUUGN editor to ensure a timely service
  for the subscribers.
- Provide assistance to the AUUG summer conference organisers,

This person would be given a budget for these activities and
provide an all year focus for the group, unlike ACMS who,
quite rightly, keep their own interests above those of the AUUG
members.

I would envisage that the ~$200k currently spent on the management
expertise offered by ACMS would be better spent on a AUUG staffer
who was genuinely following the interests of the AUUG membership.

The General manager should probably command a wage of ~$70k
and require some allocation for an office and related expenses,
which would still leave quite a deal of profit.

The benefits that I see from this arrangement go further than
fixing the Winter conference profitability, it will allow
the AUUG committee (which is well known to meet infrequently)
to take up a role that is more like a board of directors,
who set a direction for the AUUG general manager to take
the organisation. At least it will no longer rely on a group
of volunteers to follow up their own decisions (not wanting
to mention this years election fiasco :-)).

Of course these calculations are based on the returns of the
1991 conference, I would not doubt that a talented and well-focussed
person knowledgable about the budgetary constraints of the
AUUG could have done a lot better in many aspects of the
organisation of this event and have lead to either a larger
profit, or a similiar result based on a reduced conference
admission charge.

Comments, criticisms (well mild ones ...) welcome.