4:01 p.m.
On 24/02/2022 18:34, Steven Maddox wrote:
- Stage 1: Everyone is encouraged to send nominations by e-mail to
info(a)functionoffice.org by no later than the end of the day of 25th
February.
Strike that, time for nominations extended until end of Sunday/Monday
morning... so hopefully more people can see this over the weekend.
Steven Maddox
Director, Seaquake Project Leader, Developer and Account Manager
Function Office
Registered in England & Wales number 06745059 at Innovation Centre 3, University
Drive, Keele, ST5 5NL.
On 24/02/2022 18:34, Steven Maddox wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It's time for the annual choosing of who will run the Staffordshire
> Linux User Group project!
>
> Last year this was forgone due to a mixture of COVID-19 and how Richard
> had only been in the job for about 7 months by the time the LUG's 22nd
> birthday was coming around on the 2nd March. I've asked Richard to send
> a final e-mail as LUGMaster for this term which is about to end...
> giving an update on where the project is currently.
>
> You should have already got that e-mail just prior to getting this
> one... so please read that first.
>
> As a director of Function Office I am thrilled to see that, through a
> mixture of online engagement, the LUG has managed to get through and
> survive in some form from COVID-19 (or what we've seen of it so far,
> fingers crossed!).
>
> The LUG was thriving in terms of physical meetings prior to the outbreak
> of COVID-19. So it is with great hope that now physical meetings can
> finally resume, and that we get a leader who can revive things back to
> their former glory. Especially since that room we use for physical
> meetings has also been kept very well maintained during this period, and
> in many ways vastly improved.
>
> This nomination process culminates in a singular project leader being
> appointed, who can then involve whomever they determine might be able to
> help them ensure continued success of the project as part of a
> committee. Whomever gets this role will have full use of Function
> Office resources such as hosting, contacts, equipment, banking and
> supplier agreements (like use of the WRS room). They can also request
> that Function Office staff wear a "second hat" and join you in **your**
> committee to help too... so this can include any of the former project
> leaders or even staff from Function Office (so this doesn't need to be a
> daunting task at all).
>
> This is normally done in a 6 stage process... but we've shortned the
> time window a bit this year. Mostly because we forgot to begin this on
> the 9th February and so that a new leader is definately in the role
> ready for the LUG's 23rd year birthday which is the 2nd March 2022
> (project leader terms run from the 2nd March to the 2nd March).
>
- Stage 1: Everyone is encouraged to send nominations by e-mail to
info(a)functionoffice.org by no later than the end of the day of 25th
February.
> - Stage 2: If nominated by at least 3 people, that person will be
asked
> if they want the role, replies needed no later than the end of the day
> 27th February to be considered.
> - Stage 3: Nominations will be published on the 28th February and any
> objections to them need to be received by no later than the end of the
> day of 1st March 2022 and sent to info(a)functionoffice.org only.
> - Stage 4: Nominees may be asked questions such as any relevant
> experience or other supporting credentials to help us make a decision.
> - Stage 5: Function Office staff discuss the subject and the board
> agrees a new project leader which will be announced on the 2nd March.
> - Stage 6: Internally within the LUG, the project leader can title
> themselves however they like (e.g. Project Leader, Governor or
> LUGMaster, etc...) and can create new roles for whomever they like to
> assist them internally as part of a committee.
>
> Given Richard is stepping down... unlike in 2020 when I said the
> opposite... I don't mind if people want to nominate myself as I'd step
> up if no one else want the role.
>
> However a fresh perspective is welcome and I'd love to see some other
> names being put forward.
>
> Hope this all makes sense,
>
> Since this is a Function Office process, I'd be grateful if any
> questions surrounding this be sent directly to info(a)functionoffice.org
> only.
>
> Thanks
>