Ah, well sure—that sounds like a different argument though.

In most cases I'd agree with that idea.

In this case:

• we've someone who's essentially proven they can handle the demand (3-4 years of evidence)
• there's the 'backpay' context—those 3-4 years of working for free are kind built into comp I believe, but that's admittedly not explicit
• there's the risk of losing this very valuable person to the unsustainable burnout. As a community we currently offer ~$0 to stick with us. The day job presumably offers >$0. It's a good idea to 'put in an offer' if we all think there's more value to be had here

There's some conflicting concepts in there, yes (handle vs burnout). Risk = she continues to take both on, can't, chooses the day job, and then doesn't give back the DHF funds. I personally think that's a very small risk, but wouldn't fault anyone for disagreeing.

Anyhow, @apshamilton's statement stands:

Its a good idea but it needs to be run by her.

And looking at the edit in the proposal, seems that's the way it's going anyway :)