On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 08:42:30PM -0400, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Pretty much everyone has the same amount of time. Not so for money.
> There is a feeling (at least I have such a feeling) that in some
> sense every volunteer who spends an hour advancing IETF work is
> sacrificing the same amount by devoting their hour to that IETF work,
> whether posting comments to mailing lists or voting on an AD ballot or
> something in between. This breaks down as soon as any volunteer is
> paid any money by the IETF for their time. Suddenly some people are
> ahead getting money they would not have otherwise received while
> others are behind, sacrificing a larger payment if they used that hour
> for something else.
I do not understand that. Whoever might get sponsoring from the
IETF (or ISOC) would definitely still end up making less per hour than
what anyone of the average current silicon valley level "volunteers" get
from their employer while serving as AD.
How about: Somebody whose total bottom line is lower in the end is more
of a volunteer than someone getting paid the big bucks while doing the job ?
> Money is just different from free meals, t-shirts, plaques, etc.
> Why do US Government security regulations prohibit storing
> classified material in the same secure container with money? Too many
> actual cases where the container was stolen/broken open for the money
> and the classified documents left to be blown across the landscape by
> the wind.
Fascinating.
> Why do almost no child care centers have a charge for picking up a
> child late? Because it leads the customers to view this, rather than
> as an exceptional thing they might get away with in an emergency (but
> if they do too often, they will get kicked out of the service) as a
> service they can buy at the last minute whenever they want it leading
> to scheduling and operational chaos.
Sure. Broken workaround for a broken system.
> This might seem unrelated but the
> point is that as soon as you monetize something (that in this case was
> in the nature of an exceptional favor), you change everyone's attitude
> towards it with major operational consequences.
I agree with the generalization. But:
As we see in politics, the candidates who are independently rich
are doing a much better job than those having to finance their
committee memberships from congressional compensation and lobby
support. Not!
Aka: The ability be an AD IS ALREADY MONETIZED because you can't do the job
without a funding source. we're just discussing adding one more funding option.
> Paying ADs (other than for direct expenses with some reasonable
> limits) is just a bad idea.
Well, maybe we do get rough consenus on at least trying to figure out such
expense funding option for ADs.
As for why anything beyond that is a bad idea in your opinion, i am still
interested to get an argument i could understand. All i have right
now is a child care center letting rich silicon valley tech-parents
pay for overtime and rejecting to consider a support fund for
night-shift single mom kids with the argument "it is just a bad idea"
and "some argument with confidential documents and explosions".
;-)
Cheers
Toerless
PS.: i always appreciate color- and insight-full comparisons, i just didn't
understand how yours where really proving the points you where trying to
make. As opposed to rather proving the opposite to me.
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
> 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
> d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
>
> > I *strongly* encourage everyone who thinks paying AD's is a good to
> > read this transcript of a Planet Money podcast:
> >
> > https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/13/156737801/the-cost-of-free-doughnuts-70-years-of-regret
> >
> > also of interest:
> >
> > https://www.nonprofitrisk.org/resources/articles/tempting-but-confusing-and-dangerous-paying-volunteers-just-a-little-something/
> >
