That’s all well and good, but it would create a very niche and specialised role on the committee that, currently, can probably only be filled by one or two people, and even the Treasurer role doesn’t have that strict a requirement. That sort of thing doesn’t exactly lend itself to the freedom of choice we’ve both been fairly heavily in favour of with the recent changes. If there were to be such a role, it should be geared more towards the organising of the IT needs, responsible for making sure it happens rather than for actually doing. Ideally they’d lean to working with people who can do it, so where necessary multiple people can handle the various aspects you describe. The flexibility I mentioned earlier comes from this person being able to move these jobs around as needed, and by your own example, the handover from Craig to Hawkwind to Yourself, and the small amounts of resulting fallout (emphasis on small), probably could have been handled faster and more efficiently with one person actively engaged in just trying to get the end result. Whittled back to that, I don’t actually see that it needs to be a solely dedicated role on the committee.
Basically, I’m just wary of creating an extra position with a certain technical requirement that essentially can only be filled by one person, and please don’t take this as anything other than an example, but right now that would be one R Paddy. It means that that person, whoever they are, basically gets a free ride on to the committee out of necessity, and it leaves us vulnerable if that person decides they don’t want to do it. Obviously this mentality could be applied to all the committee roles, but the difference is that the other roles can be quickly filled.