RE: [nc-budget] Job description v3

[Dany Vandromme <vandrome@renater.fr>]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Hi all. the short description may be more convenient for advertising, but
> the detailed description provides a better idea of the "consumption of human
> resources". This, of course ties into the budget. We probably have an
> unrealistic expectation of what any single person can do, regardless of what
> they get paid.
-
Good point indeed
Furthermore, To look for an entity seems to me also a kind of vague
definition of what we are looking for (compared to individual), and most
probably more difficult to evaluate
- 
> 
> peter
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: owner-nc-budget@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-budget@dnso.org]On Behalf
> Of Philip Sheppard
>   Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 3:21 AM
>   To: DNSO budget
>   Subject: Re: [nc-budget] Job description v3
> 
> 
>   Chuck,
>   you make a good point in describing the nature of proposals and
> recognising these may be beyond budget. But that is not a reason to change
> the job description if it is valid!
> 
>   I support your suggestion to use the shorter job description in the
> initial advertising/outreach and then use the detailed one once a short list
> emerges.
>   Philip
> 
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER

                Reseau National de Telecommunications 
         pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                  |  ENSAM
Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr |  FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------