On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Robert Brockway <rob...@spi-inc.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.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
