Re: Agenda item for February SPI board meeting

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Robert Brockway <robert(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:
>> I was at one point involved with another nonprofit that used this kind of
>> service. That nonprofit ended up moving those man-hours to in-house
>> volunteer board members because it wasn't cost-effective for their needs.
>> Although every organization is different and it would be a bit less
>> inappropriate for SPI than for them, I still think it's a worse option for
>> us than either your option #2 or the status quo.
>
>
> Yes I personally suspect that option #2 would probably offer better value
> for money but I'd like to take a closer look at option #1.

Just in case it wasn't obvious: If the envisioned amount of hours is
less than 10 per week, then #2 provides for the option that the part
time person would be someone already active in one of the SPI
projects.

For instance a US based university student with the needed skills
would probably be an ideal candidate. Choosing this kind of person
would then enable a "growth path" where either a) the person could
become full time employed later if SPI grows and the person graduates,
or b) he could later stay a volunteer (such as a director) in SPI,
when he is no longer able to have a part-time job due to graduating,
working full-time, family and other reasons.

henrik
--
henrik(dot)ingo(at)avoinelama(dot)fi
+358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559