🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <101@quark.ansto.gov.au> frank@iris.ansto.gov.au (Frank Crawford) writes:
>
>In article <4989@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>ACMS actually have two roles within AUUG, one the conference management
>and the second being the running of the AUUG secretariat.  Your comments
>only relate to the conference part, you would still require someone to
>take the secretariat function.  There are many routine clerical
>functions which would be a waste of money for the Business Manager to
>do.

I don't think so, my comments related to the fact that the
winter conference currently generates revenues capable of supporting
a $200k lump of money being spent on the day-to-day running of athe AUUG.
The winter conference being the major task for the manager it would
be wise to hire somebody with that sort of orgaisational flair.
I would have imagined that part of the infrastructure required
to effectively use a person in this rule would involve the
employment of a personal assistant.
The clerical matters you have mentioned could be handled by this
office, throughout the year.

>>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 :-)).
>
>This is certainly the role that the committee wants to move to, and have
>been working at for at least the last two years.  Where possible we have
>been hiring professional services to give continuous support.
>
>Also which groups of volunteers?  Previously the committed most often had
>to followup their own decisions.

That is exactly what I said, the volunteers are the committee, 
i.e. "a group of volunteers to follow up their OWN decisions".

>I'm not so sure that anyone could have made a major change.  Remember
>that hindsight alway identifies the wrong choices.  Many of the
>decisions were made by the committee, and any manager would still have
>to follow such directions.  Also no matter what is claimed after the
>act, most of the decsions were based on 450 paying attendees.

This is hardly hindsight, the evidence was available since the AUUG
in Melb at the Southern Cross Hotel, I just didn't have the figures
to back up my suspicions.

>>Comments, criticisms (well mild ones ...) welcome.
>
>These comments shouldn't be taken as criticism as all such comments are
>welcome.  The (last) committee was aware of many of these points and had
>taken a number of steps to address them (although not necessarily those
>that you suggest).
>
>Now when do you want to start on AUUG92's budget. :-)

Hopefully last January :-).
I think I will leave this to the AUUG office bearers.

Hope you can find a way to eliminate the $33/person charge for
clerical services, seems a bit steep given that most people manage
to get into the winter conference after making 1 phone call,
sending in 1 form with their particulars inclusive of credit card
number, and a 1 minute interaction upon registration to receive
their showbags...
I might also take this opportunity to respond to the objection to
offsite lunches, which was apparently due to the exhibition sponsors
wanting the people to stay near by. If that is the case, then you should
place a portion of the lunch costs to the exhibition, as they seem
to be the ones requiring it.