Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I am not convinced that this is actually the case. I certainly do not believe that the entire conversation about such an issue requires a F2F meeting.
First of all, nobody is saying that the entire conversation requires F2F -- just more than is allocated for at this point. Anyone looking can see that At-Large is also doing the bulk of its discussions using other methods -- as is happening right now. In any case, the above comment illustrates why the At-Large community -- not staff -- should decide how much of At-Large's budget should be spent on F2F. With all due respect, Nick, this process should not simply be about convincing you what is necessary. Staff's role should be as a facilitator, not a gatekeeper. It should support At-Large in _its_ prioritization efforts and ensure that the budget is not overspent. And if the At-Large community believes that additional F2F is even more important than having extra support staff -- and is prepared to accept the consequences of that decision -- it should have the right to make that priority. Staff can complain that At-Large wants to spend more money on flying itself to meetings. However, is this any less defensible than staff wanting to spend At-Large's money on more staff? The problem in this dynamic is that staff alone has the final say on both such priority settings. This is why we need budget information on At-Large that does not have the staff component removed. Everything spent on At-Large -- including its HR component -- should be available to examine and prioritize. - Evan