[Ec-ncuc] Video update

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:02:46AM -0800, William Drake (william.drake at uzh.ch) wrote:

> it'd be healthy to start following a standardized workflow in which
> 1) a team responsible for an initiative (on something like this
> Communication presumably would have been the right one) 2) sends a
> rec to the FT which 3) coordinates with the EC and then if approved
> MM cuts the check within the context of FT-overseen account
> management.

Sounds good to me.

> Of course we don't want to construct unnecessarily rococo
> bureaucracy

No, but what you described above shouldn't be too hard once
it becomes routine.

> In this case, the initiative was undertaken by the previous EC and
> is apparently well down the track in terms of financial commitments,

Does that mean we are committed to this or is the option of dropping
the whole thing without spending anything more also on the table?

> so perhaps backing up and following such a process would seem silly
> to some. So ok we can short circuit 1 and 2

OK. But I would want to see a bit more details, especially what's been
done (and spent) and who's been promised what.

Is there some documentation of the project somewhere I could see?

> But we're not going to fly Eric to Beijing with camera in hand, and
> we can't blend in bits shot with different production values. And
> he's awaiting instructions. So I guess we give him more money,
> option 2, and hope the product proves to be of value in the context
> of larger revamping and messaging efforts??

I feel distinctly uncomfortable about deciding to spend 10%
of our funds (was going to say budget but we don't have one)
on something I've seen no proper documentation of.
Nor can I really see the added value between options 1 and 2
being worth it at this point. So, on the basis of what little
I know now, I'd prefer the cheaper option.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen