Back to the extraordinary (and extraordinary) meeting of the delegates FNMA I think about what because yesterday happened. Why is it so difficult to talk about the FNMA? Why is it so hard to find a consensus on approaches? Sometime in the middle, we have to get a mood, rather ad hoc voted on how many of us a FNMA want to have a rather loose network of professionalists undocumented (opt 1) and how many a FNMA as "professional "organized network of services for the" Community "(opt 2). I do not know if it was the slightly suggestive question or to the actual preferences of the majority, this majority has voted in any event of> 20 people Option 2. I was for Option 1 and is still propagated to me When asked why I believe this with only three other delegates part (t) e. What would be the services, without which we would have to if we "just" more of a loose network would be? What would we lose? Some could perhaps be more cost-effective (buffets, keynote speakers, ...) and raises some might otherwise finance (sponsorship for events, acquisition of direct costs by individual universities) need, or perhaps no additional funding (travel to international events could range from the Stem School be accepted, ...)? And the (for me) most important "service", the semi-annual or perhaps even more annual meetings FNMA should nevertheless go through the membership fees.
So I think that we should look for the future workshops (which is now scheduled to take place in any event times), after we know more about potentially demanded services to list all of these services, roughly calculate and "entwine" even after their importance and potential demand . We need the budget from membership fees (plus any revenue from these services) against. . Make And I can imagine that then first of all the meetings and the opportunities for exchange between people working in similar areas, left . Remain A network so that should be in the (remaining?) Can pay membership fees.
Finally here's a photo from yesterday Preview future workshop.
