[Osmf-talk] Interesting Points | Re: Funding of iD Development and Maintenance

[Andy Allan]

On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 08:43, Rory McCann <rory.mccann at osmfoundation.org> wrote:

> We didn't discuss the specifics of that contract. permanent / fixed
> term. Yes, legally there is a difference, but in practice is it a large
> difference? We have the right to make a position redundant, and that
> might cost money, but it is very different from telling someone “we're
> not renewing your fixed term contract”? Either way, someone is pissed
> off, right?

Yes, it makes a big difference, both to the employee, and to the OSMF.

For the employee, it sets expectations. If the position is advertised
as permanent, then the employee has a reasonable expectation that it
will continue to exist, as advertised, for a few years, if not longer.
But if there's a reasonable chance that the OSMF wants to review the
role and responsibilities, maybe after the first year or first two
years, then it's unfair on the employee to advertise it as permanent.
For many people, being made redundant 1 year into a permanent contract
will be a horrible experience, and will feel entirely different to
working on a 1 year fixed contract that was not renewed.

It also affects the OSMF. Altering the roles and responsibilities of a
permanent position is much harder, and the emotional impact on
volunteer board members of steering a situation of enforced redundancy
(perhaps on an employee we are all friends with) would be a big ask.
It's a tough situation and most board members would choose the "muddle
along" option, rather than the "grasping the thorn" option, since
there is nothing pleasant about managing redundancies (especially, as
discussed above, if the employee wasn't expecting it). Whereas a
fixed-term contract is easier - if everyone is happy, the contract can
be easily extended, whereas if the role needs to end it does so by
default, with much less emotional damage to the board members and the
whole organisation.

Now of course there are advantages to having a permanent position
advertised - you'll get a different pool of candidates, the permanence
of the contract will likely mean lower salary expectations, short term
contracts might be unnecessary for this particular role, and so on. I
don't mean to say that I know one option is better than the other.

What I really want to hear from the Board is that they recognise which
bits of these decisions are not easy to reverse, and as well as
recognising those situations they are also considering the
alternatives.

Thanks,
Andy