Re: [nc-budget] FW: Secretariat

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Erica, I eventually understand what's wrong with your posting
-- you shall change  
   To: "nc Budget List (E-mail)" <majordomo@dnso.org>,
into To: nc-budget@dnso.org

Majordomo is just for subscribing, once and no more !

Thank you for posting this full copy.
Best,
Elisabeth
--

> From owner-nc-budget@dnso.org Fri Aug 25 09:26 MET 2000
> Message-ID: <1595534C9032D411AECE00508BC766FB869421@mercury.mit>
> From: Erica Roberts <Erica.Roberts@melbourneit.com.au>
> To: "nc Budget List (E-mail)" <majordomo@dnso.org>,
>         "Nc-Budget (E-mail)"
> 	 <nc-budget@dnso.org>,
>         "nc Budget List (E-mail 2)" <Majordomo@dnso.org>
> Subject: [nc-budget] FW: Secretariat
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:26:27 +1000
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> I'm sorry if this is spamming everbody but I got back an unusual message
> from majordomo dnso org - small extract below - and I'm not sure whether the
> message got thru.
> 
> >>>> Hi Chuck,
> **** Command 'hi' not recognized.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I am comfortable with your detailed spec for the Secretariat.  My only
> **** Command 'i' not recognized.
> >>>> concern is that it is possibly too complete and that the  job as
> specified
> **** Command 'concern' not recognized.
> >>>> is beyond the scope of one person.  I think we are agreed that the
> total job
> **** Command 'is' not recognized.  
> 
> 
> erica-----Original Message-----
> From: Erica Roberts 
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 5:00 PM
> To: Chuckg@Netsol. Com (E-mail)
> Cc: nc Budget List (E-mail 2)
> Subject: Secretariat
> 
> 
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> I am comfortable with your detailed spec for the Secretariat.  My only
> concern is that it is possibly too complete and that the  job as specified
> is beyond the scope of one person.  I think we are agreed that the total job
> probably is beyond the scope of a single person but that we should hire a
> senior person first and then allow that person to advise on what other
> support is required and how that can be delivered.  Funding is clearly a
> critical issue here!  Given that this remains an issue, I suggest we
> indicate in covering documentation that we recognise that the secretariat
> task may be beyond the scope of a single person and that any bids should
> prioritise taskings so that additional staff can be progressive hired as
> required and as funding becomes available.  
> 
> My assessment of the priorities would be Objectives 1, 2 and 4.  I see
> Objective 4 as (at least initially)  a stretch (or longer term) objective.  
> The specific job responsibilities for Ob. 4 will need to be prioitised with
> time frames and resource costs attached.
> 
> It would be good if we can get sign off on this tonight and agree on the
> selection criteria we intend to use.
> 
> erica
>