Could you kindly provide information regarding the initial reporting of the case to the Community Health committee, along with the identity of the individual or individuals entrusted with the case’s investigation?
Is it within the realm of possibility that the relationship between Julia Wise and Kat Woods, as evidenced by the content accessible via the following link: https://juliawise.net/interview-with-kat-woods-decision-making-about-having-kids/, may have influenced the expeditiousness with which the Community Health committee executed pertinent actions?
Your assertion that, “We were familiar with many (but not all) of the concerns raised …,” piques curiosity as to which specific concerns had been previously acknowledged. Furthermore, could you elucidate the methodologies employed to ascertain their veracity?
In the spirit of transparency, and recognizing the historical underreporting tendencies of certain individuals like Julia Wise, it would be appreciated if you could enumerate the precise steps undertaken in the course of taking actions as alluded to.
Given the gravity of allegations, such as the solicitation of recreational substances from employees and the encouragement of unlicensed driving, is there not ample cause for the temporary suspension of individuals such as Emerson and Kat from participation in community events and forum activities? What threshold of misconduct would necessitate the Community Health committee to perceive such behavior as detrimental to the Effective Altruism community, thus contravening its mission and setting an undesirable precedent for newcomers?
To facilitate a clearer understanding of the investigative timeline, could you please divulge the duration of the ongoing investigation, its commencement date, and your projected timeline for the publication of conclusive findings?
To facilitate a clearer understanding of the investigative timeline, could you please divulge the duration of the ongoing investigation, its commencement date, and your projected timeline for the publication of conclusive findings?
This sneaks in the presumption that publication is a good idea and a good use of CH time? I haven’t seen much positive evidence for this proposition, and indeed I’m seeing some negative evidence, live.
I understand your desire to know this information, Morpheus_Trinity. I’m sorry but we’re not in a position to share all that information here. This comment provides a partial answer.
I admire what your doing here overall in terms of keeping up pressure on the Community Health team to do something about bad actors and asking tough questions, but I don’t see what in that link supports the claim Kat Woods and Julia Wise are particularly close. I mean it’s reasonable to suspect that if a small blog interviews someone from a small world like EA, the interviewee is a close friend of the blogger. But it’s very far from guaranteed, and no closeness is mentioned in the blog post itself.
I think the pertinent question here is primarily not “Were Kat and Julia close”, but “What standard should we hold the Community Health team to here”. If you updated significantly negatively on Julia/the Community Health team due to recent events, you might want to hold them to a standard closer to the one Morpheus is proposing. This is especially true if you view the cause of inaction closer to some kind of deferral/information cascade (they are well-established and well-regarded members of the EA community), rather than due to Julia’s close personal relationship with the people in question. I do think this may be a good opportunity for the community health team to regain some trust though, and I would be interested in hearing more about the Community Health team’s involvement too, and whether we should be understanding this as “Ben spent his time on something that the Community Health team should have done but actively deprioritized”, or “The Community Health team played an active role in this investigation”, or something else.
For what it’s worth, I actually strongly upvoted Morpheus’ comment. I just think ‘she once interviewed her’ is a bit unfair to cite as somehow evidence of corruption, regardless of how confident people should be in Julia Wise overall.
Could you kindly provide information regarding the initial reporting of the case to the Community Health committee, along with the identity of the individual or individuals entrusted with the case’s investigation?
Is it within the realm of possibility that the relationship between Julia Wise and Kat Woods, as evidenced by the content accessible via the following link: https://juliawise.net/interview-with-kat-woods-decision-making-about-having-kids/, may have influenced the expeditiousness with which the Community Health committee executed pertinent actions?
Your assertion that, “We were familiar with many (but not all) of the concerns raised …,” piques curiosity as to which specific concerns had been previously acknowledged. Furthermore, could you elucidate the methodologies employed to ascertain their veracity?
In the spirit of transparency, and recognizing the historical underreporting tendencies of certain individuals like Julia Wise, it would be appreciated if you could enumerate the precise steps undertaken in the course of taking actions as alluded to.
Given the gravity of allegations, such as the solicitation of recreational substances from employees and the encouragement of unlicensed driving, is there not ample cause for the temporary suspension of individuals such as Emerson and Kat from participation in community events and forum activities? What threshold of misconduct would necessitate the Community Health committee to perceive such behavior as detrimental to the Effective Altruism community, thus contravening its mission and setting an undesirable precedent for newcomers?
To facilitate a clearer understanding of the investigative timeline, could you please divulge the duration of the ongoing investigation, its commencement date, and your projected timeline for the publication of conclusive findings?
No, because if nothing else you need to give them time to respond.
This sneaks in the presumption that publication is a good idea and a good use of CH time? I haven’t seen much positive evidence for this proposition, and indeed I’m seeing some negative evidence, live.
I understand your desire to know this information, Morpheus_Trinity. I’m sorry but we’re not in a position to share all that information here. This comment provides a partial answer.
I admire what your doing here overall in terms of keeping up pressure on the Community Health team to do something about bad actors and asking tough questions, but I don’t see what in that link supports the claim Kat Woods and Julia Wise are particularly close. I mean it’s reasonable to suspect that if a small blog interviews someone from a small world like EA, the interviewee is a close friend of the blogger. But it’s very far from guaranteed, and no closeness is mentioned in the blog post itself.
I think the pertinent question here is primarily not “Were Kat and Julia close”, but “What standard should we hold the Community Health team to here”. If you updated significantly negatively on Julia/the Community Health team due to recent events, you might want to hold them to a standard closer to the one Morpheus is proposing. This is especially true if you view the cause of inaction closer to some kind of deferral/information cascade (they are well-established and well-regarded members of the EA community), rather than due to Julia’s close personal relationship with the people in question. I do think this may be a good opportunity for the community health team to regain some trust though, and I would be interested in hearing more about the Community Health team’s involvement too, and whether we should be understanding this as “Ben spent his time on something that the Community Health team should have done but actively deprioritized”, or “The Community Health team played an active role in this investigation”, or something else.
For what it’s worth, I actually strongly upvoted Morpheus’ comment. I just think ‘she once interviewed her’ is a bit unfair to cite as somehow evidence of corruption, regardless of how confident people should be in Julia Wise overall.