And here is my reply... (not sure why my email doesn't have a reply-to
header but it seems to be happening a lot at the moment... I think it is a
mailman issue because the same is happening to everyone (for me anyay).
I'm not a involved in technology professionally, but I did handle most
> of the tech work for WMUK's first fundraiser in 2009.
>
Great! I've been trying to find someone able to give me a good overview of
what exactly is needed (tech-wise) for the fundraiser to little effect. Any
chance you could fill me in on what was/is needed?
That was an
>
>> extremely simplistic and ineffective fundraiser, and it still took me
>
>> significantly more than a day a week in tech work (plus a significant
>
>> amount of Mike's time as well). Admittedly, someone that didn't keep
>
>> having to stop to google CSS they had forgotten could have done it a
>
>> little quicker, but it's still a lot of work to implement and maintain
>
>> the kind of fundraising system we need. I can pretty much guarantee
>
>> that WMUK lost money last year by not having a streamlined system for
>
>> setting up direct debits, and that was because they didn't have the
> paid tech resource they needed.
>
I appreciate the fundraiser is something of a special case - although again
I can't bring my experience to bear on it because I don't have a full spec.
On the other hand we risk ending up with the same situation as this year;
no one working tech... so I'd prefer to see not-quite-enough tech support
instead.
>
> Then consider office tech support, which is on your list. That's
>
>> something you can't really do remotely and part-time. If something
>
>> goes wrong, you need to be there to fix it. With a rapidly growing
>
>> office, that's going to take up a significant amount of time as well.
>
>> (It's probably half a day's work just to set up each new staff
> member.)
>
True, some aspects are hard to handle remotely. But, again, this gives us a
tech resource to draw on and helps justify FTE in 2014.
Realistically speaking; if you're paying £35K for a developer/manager
(which is what the last job description was looking for) it's not a great
use of his or her time to be fixing laptops :) If this is a major issue
there are contract tech support services we could look into to fill this
specific gap that would be more cost effective.
> Then there is supporting programmes. We've pretty much just made do
>
>> without good tech for our programmes, but if you had a tech person in
>
>> the office you can be sure that people would come up with a lot of
> programme related work for them.
>
So this just needs prioritising; not everything will get support - but
that, again, is another data point.
> In addition, a lot of people think we should be paying someone to do
>
>> some mediawiki development. Writing extensions that we think are
>
>> important and that the WMF isn't supporting, for instance. You could
> easily fill a day a week with that.
>
This is a silly idea, as I said before, and we should forget about this for
a moment. Focus on our own tech needs.
Even if we hire a FTE getting them to do this in their schedule would be a
waste of money.
> And finally there is all the work that you don't realise exists
>
>> because you've never had anyone to do it but inevitably discover as
>
>> soon as there is someone available to do it ("Work expands so as to
>
>> fill the time available for its completion." [1]). That can include
> very productive and valuable things.
>
I have considered everything I've been told so far about our own needs; and
added on top of it my own experience in working this way. So I am confident
one day per week is sufficient in the short term.
In fact, companies almost always overestimate the tech time they need. This
is because they see projects that might fill 4 days of work - and
extrapolate that the developer is going to be BUSY. The truth is you get
busy periods and lulls - and a good engineer will be able to manage time
effectively to spread this out (for example; fundraiser might need lots of
work, but if you start in May...).
> I think you we hire a 0.2 FTE contractor, we'll quickly find we are
>
>> going ridiculously over budget on overtime and end up increasing the
>
>> standard hours. Once you do that, the arguments in favour of a PT
> contractor rather than a FT employee reduce.
>
What's the alternative? We can't find someone to do all the stuff we need
at the budget we have set. And a FTE is certainly too much for our next
years needs.
The best approach is to bring in a minimum utility and work up from there;
justifying a FTE for the 2014 budget will be MUCH easier if we can say
"look at X specific things we didn't have time to do".
Tom
(ps you replied Offlist - not sure if that was intentional but I kept it
off-list just in case :))