On Oct 17, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Tim Chown <tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I believe the "intense service" you mention is a significant deterrent for many. > > I'm sure it's been suggested before, but is there mileage in rethinking the > AD roles, and either the number of ADs per area, or whether introducing > Assistant ADs or similar might allow people who can contribute less time to > do so, while easing the burden on the main ADs? > > Just a thought anyway. Personally, I'd assume that some people would be > more willing to help if deemed to have the skills required, but the time > constraints are, as many ADs will confirm if you chat with them, the blocking > factor. > > I think the blocking factor may be primarily a financial one. > > I'd like to nominate one person, but I know that as they are self-employed as a consultant, they would forfeit essentially all income in order to satisfy the time demands. Indeed that's more or less what they said to me. > > The only solution allowing independents to become an AD that I can see would be for larger companies to partially or wholly sponsor slots and/or particular individuals. If this were to happen, I think we'd get both more, and more diverse, nominations; but I appreciate that like John's suggestions, mine is unlikely to solve the problem this time around. At the point where we pay people to occupy the role the nature of it changes dramatically. > Dave.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail