Why force such discussions at the beginning? You can't even begin to do it until you know what she is doing and what she wants to be paid. So I don't think it should be spelled out at this point.
Once she actually does stuff and wants to be paid then we start having that discussion. I'm completely at a loss why people approach things in this manner. It doesn't seem productive. At all.
I don't remember having these kinds of preemptively-critical discussions about Toast, MethodX, Cass or any of our most valuable forum members.
Each one of them pitched in and had developed a valued reputation long before deciding to run for delegate. This is the standard mechanism we advise for most high potential new talent - prove your worth, get some support from another trusted delegate, then run for full-time office. Perhaps some people with established reputations can take a shorter path, but I don't think it's necessary to preemptively interrogate everybody entering the pipeline unless and until they become a candidate.
So why are we picking on this particular person who may or may not be embarking on a similar trajectory?
How do we expect to attract top talent if you guys hit them with a cold water hose right out of the gate?
This thread is starting to embarrass me.