Hm, from my side at least it's premised on the money=money identity. Maybe somebody else was proposing that time=money, but I think I've been pretty clear several times in saying that my intention for this suggestion is that it make it possible for people to be ADs who can't otherwise afford to. The sense in which time comes into this is that I can't see how an AD can do a good job in <50% of an FTE.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/1/18 7:28 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> a lot of folk seem to be assuming financial rewards and penalties are
> principal factors. are there data to suppor this assumption?
Anecdotally, on the occasions when I've had to decline
a nomination, when I was consulting the issue was the
money. When I've been working for someone else the issue
has been time. I expect there may be other issues as
well, but it's not at all clear to me that the singular
problem that's limiting the candidate pool is money. I
think the proposal to pay ADs (ack, ptooey) is premised
on the time == money equality.
Melinda
