Someone mentioned to me that the problem they see with AISC is that its scope is way too broad.
I think it’s great that you can accommodate a lot of different projects, but I would guess this does make it harder for you to make the case for funding.
Would you consider giving the option to funders to only fund certain types of projects? I could imagine many people wanting to fund technical research, but not advocacy, and vice versa.
Basically, organisers spend more than half of their time on general communications and logistics to support participants get to work.
And earmarking stipends to particular areas of work seems rather burdensome administratively, though I wouldn’t be entirely against it if it means we can cover more people’s stipends.
Overall, I think we tended not to allow differentiated fundraising before because it can promote internal conflicts, rather than having people come together to make the camp great.
Someone mentioned to me that the problem they see with AISC is that its scope is way too broad.
I think it’s great that you can accommodate a lot of different projects, but I would guess this does make it harder for you to make the case for funding.
Would you consider giving the option to funders to only fund certain types of projects? I could imagine many people wanting to fund technical research, but not advocacy, and vice versa.
We ended up having a private exchange about it.
Basically, organisers spend more than half of their time on general communications and logistics to support participants get to work.
And earmarking stipends to particular areas of work seems rather burdensome administratively, though I wouldn’t be entirely against it if it means we can cover more people’s stipends.
Overall, I think we tended not to allow differentiated fundraising before because it can promote internal conflicts, rather than having people come together to make the camp great.