Following the ZOMG call today, I have 3 priorities for future ZOMG committee members:
- An agreed to mechanism for gauging a suitable time commitment
- An agreed to mechanism for adjusting pay in-line with time commitment
- Staggering ZOMG elections
Unless I misinterpreted, ZF stated that they can accommodate the increase in ZOMG pay from the ZF budget, meaning ZIP 1014 wouldn’t have to be amended. If this is ZF’s preference and there are too many fears around ZOMG allocating resources to itself, I can see proceeding without a ZIP 1014 amendment. ZOMG remains reliant on ZF, and that’s okay for now – independence can be discussed further down the road, if necessary, by a more established ZOMG.
As for deciding the time commitment and pay, this is tricky if not done now. If I were running again, I’d want to know before running. On the other hand, it may be the time commitment in the 2nd year of ZOMG is much less than the 1st year, and so we could allow ZOMG #2 to decide on its pay 2-3 months into its term. A problem there is they have a vested interest in making their time commitment and pay as high as possible… but alas, trust in parts of this process is inevitable.
As for staggering elections, we need to offset re-elections somehow to help the ZOMG maintain continuity of knowledge and execution. It could be that 2 of the 5 ZOMG members run for 18-month seats, and then 3 of 5 run for 12-month seats. From this election forward, all seats would then be for 12-months. Another option would be to have 2 of the 5 run for 6-month seats now.