Special General Meeting - Wednesday March 3rd

[TimeTraveller]

mmm, I agree with Dave. Yes, we do want an IT guy, but I don't think its necessary that they be on the committee

[Ryan Paddy]

Does an IT guru really need to be on the committee though? If kept separate, it means the various tasks of website/forums/etc can be split and shuffled, and more importantly reallocated much more quickly than they have been previously, without having to put it through the paces of the bureaucracy.

The same could be said for gear, etc. The IT Officer would be in charge of making sure that maintenance and progress on the society's IT actually happens, just like the Equipment Officer is in charge of making sure that maintenance and progress on gear happens. The IT Officer doesn't have to do the IT work themselves or be a guru, but they're the go-to person for the committee so that everyone knows who is in charge of making IT improvements happen for the society. IT will be one of the central committee's most important functions, because most national functions can be improved by good use of IT.

As for keeping it "separate", there's no flexibility benefit that you suggest. In the past Craig, myself, and others have done IT work for the society, and similar people will probably continue to do so, so the flexibility in terms of who does the work will be unchanged. But nobody in particular has ever been in charge of driving it, or mandated to do it by the society's members, and it shows. Sometimes the President drives it for a bit (Adam was particularly focused at this), sometime the Marketing Officer, but there's no ongoing plan. What we need is someone to drive and coordinate it, to focus on it. The other officers have other things to distract them.

[TequilaDave]

I see what you mean now - the way it came across from my initial read was you wanted someone on the committee to actually do the IT, and I'm not sure having a position with an actual qualified requirement would be a good thing. If that makes sense...

It still smacks like something that belongs in a marketing officers cap...

[Ryan Paddy]

It still smacks like something that belongs in a marketing officers cap...

If it was just the content of the website, then yes. In fact, Muppet drove the recent refresh of the NZLARPS home page content, and I imagine that the Marketing Officer will continue to drive marketing content in this way, whether it's online, in print, in person, or whatever.

But what I'm talking about is not content, but the IT infrastructure that the content resides on. Making sure the forum is up to date with patches, making the website easier to update (some sort of content management system has been discussed repeatedly but never implemented), enhancing the membership system and adding more capabilities like event booking (if someone was driving me to make this happen I might prioritise it and get it done), etc. Also, recognising emerging technologies that can help the society, and putting them to use. That's not marketing. Also, the IT Officer would be the logical person to be an administrator of Diatribe during their term, taking one more pressure off the President who has currently taken on that role in a if-nobody-else-will-do-this-I-suppose-I-must capacity.

[TequilaDave]

That's all well and good, but it would create a very niche and specialised role on the committee that, currently, can probably only be filled by one or two people, and even the Treasurer role doesn't have that strict a requirement. That sort of thing doesn't exactly lend itself to the freedom of choice we've both been fairly heavily in favour of with the recent changes. If there were to be such a role, it should be geared more towards the organising of the IT needs, responsible for making sure it happens rather than for actually doing. Ideally they'd lean to working with people who can do it, so where necessary multiple people can handle the various aspects you describe. The flexibility I mentioned earlier comes from this person being able to move these jobs around as needed, and by your own example, the handover from Craig to Hawkwind to Yourself, and the small amounts of resulting fallout (emphasis on small), probably could have been handled faster and more efficiently with one person actively engaged in just trying to get the end result. Whittled back to that, I don't actually see that it needs to be a solely dedicated role on the committee.

Basically, I'm just wary of creating an extra position with a certain technical requirement that essentially can only be filled by one person, and please don't take this as anything other than an example, but right now that would be one R Paddy. It means that that person, whoever they are, basically gets a free ride on to the committee out of necessity, and it leaves us vulnerable if that person decides they don't want to do it. Obviously this mentality could be applied to all the committee roles, but the difference is that the other roles can be quickly filled.

[Xcerus]

I feel that there is a great need for an IT position.

That is all.

[TequilaDave]

Seeing as you've ignorantly ranted elsewhere, however, I am going to clarify part of my post;

Basically, I'm just wary of creating an extra position with a certain technical requirement that essentially can only be filled by one person, and please don't take this as anything other than an example, but right now that would be one R Paddy. It means that that person, whoever they are, basically gets a free ride on to the committee out of necessity, and it leaves us vulnerable if that person decides they don't want to do it...

IF such a position is deemed necessary by the greater majority, I do in fact think Ryan is best suited for the task. My statement above is purely an EXAMPLE ONLY. I do NOT, however, think we should be creating potentially surplus positions on the National Committee that can be filled by only one person, regardless of the position, or the particular person involved.

[TimeTraveller]

Ryan's not the only option. We have discussed with Michael Andrew as well about filling this role in the community

[Xcerus]

Seeing as you've ignorantly ranted elsewhere, however, I am going to clarify part of my post;

Basically, I'm just wary of creating an extra position with a certain technical requirement that essentially can only be filled by one person, and please don't take this as anything other than an example, but right now that would be one R Paddy. It means that that person, whoever they are, basically gets a free ride on to the committee out of necessity, and it leaves us vulnerable if that person decides they don't want to do it...

IF such a position is deemed necessary by the greater majority, I do in fact think Ryan is best suited for the task. My statement above is purely an EXAMPLE ONLY. I do NOT, however, think we should be creating potentially surplus positions on the National Committee that can be filled by only one person, regardless of the position, or the particular person involved.

When will you learn... fell into that one didn't we Dave

[Ryan Paddy]

Given that this is a national position, all we need is one larper somewhere in NZ who has an interest in IT... not wanting to stereotype larpers or anything, but some people would say a disproportionate number of larpers are into IT. Myself, Mike, Derek, and Craig (off the top of my head) all do IT for a living, and that's just in Auckland, and I've doubtless overlooked a number of people.

I don't particularly aspire to that role. But I would benefit from having someone else in that role, motivating me to get some shit done, and coordinating it.

[TequilaDave]

When will you learn... fell into that one didn't we Dave

We aim to please - now if you don't mind, the adults are trying to have a grown-up conversation. Go play quietly in the corner for a bit


I see what you mean Ryan, and from what you've written just there it's leaning towards a more coordination type role like I was thinking of anyway. That said, I'm still not entirely sure it's needed, but I'm happy enough for it if everyone else thinks otherwise. One thing I do note though is that people who tend to do IT for a living aren't always keen to do it for a hobby, and of the people you've listed at least three have expressed a lack of interest in being part of NZLARPS' organising body...

[Cameron]

*Insert opinions on why it is a good idea or not*

I would appreciate discussion on ammendments to the motions only and not discussion on why we should vote one way or another on a motion as to keep my job of tracking proposed ammendments to the motions simple, Otherwise I may miss a suggestion (I will try my hardest not to) and people will bitch. If you want to campaign and try to sway others one way or another, take it to another thread this is not the place.

*cough cough*

So right now I'm seeing that ryan's proposed motion is:

"That we instate an additional position of "IT Officer" in the national commitee who's job discription reads "Coordinate the creation and maintenance of information technology resources for the society such as the society's website, online forum, communications technology for meetings, and the enablement of projects via information technology.".

Ryan is this correct? If so I will pencil it in at the END of the motions (due to it - as we can see - being the motion with the most potential discussion) and we can vote on it at the SGM after due discussion. If you wish please go back to discussion the WORDING of the proposed motion or the nature of what the positions job should be or if it is a voting or non voting positon if it exists. Discussion on the merits of there being a position at all: see my above quote.

Sorry to be a bit of a nazi but as stated above it is for the benifit of the motions being accurate.

[Ryan Paddy]

Thanks Cameron. We could split the discussion on it to another thread if you like.

I'm happy for the proposal to go after the others. Although of course it would need to go before we nominate and vote on candidates for the positions, assuming we're doing that at the SGM too.

Here's my suggestion in motion form:

"That we create an additional position of "Information Technology Officer" in the national committee whose job description reads "Coordinate the creation and maintenance of information technology resources for the society such as the society's website, online forum, communications technology for meetings, and the enablement of projects via information technology.".

I.e. pretty much what you said, with some typing corrections and the position title spelled out in full (everyone will call them the IT officer, but for official documents we should do it in full.

Do we need to phrase it as an addition to the constitution, or is that assumed?

[Cameron]

Assumed.

[Ryan Paddy]

Assumed.

Okay. I just ask because all the other motions are phrased as amendments to the constitution.