I just want to flag that I’m particularly excited about the paid board member positions. I think that having a designated board member or two be formally responsible to spend a solid chunk of time each month going through a list of check-ups, maintenance, and other sorts of duties, could be really promising. I look forward to working with whoever takes these roles to try to figure out how we think strong nonprofit boards should really work, when assisted with regular ongoing work.
There clearly is a lot to figure out in how to make charity boards go very well. If we can make this happen, I’d feel more confident in the future of RP. We could also take some of the lessons learned and recommend them to other EA organizations.
Strong upvote. I’d add that organizations should aim to have at least one—preferably two or even three—board members who are not “full-time” EAs. Diversity of perspectives is important—for instance, a tech company’s board should include people outside tech. It’s an important way to mitigate the risk of groupthink that is inevitable in any tightly-knit community.
I trust your intentions and your ideas seem extremely valuable
It would be good to get a description with deep understanding or causal relationships for how a larger board, board quality, or governance in general would have prevented the FTX collapse, especially in a deceptive environment, like FTX, where low quality efforts can be coopted. Famously, such cooption probably happened at Theranos.
I’d add that organizations should aim to have at least one—preferably two or even three—board members who are not “full-time” EAs.
Just as importantly, it would be good to have a detailed understanding of how boards would be involved in improving EA org operation.
Diversity of perspectives is important
It’s an important way to mitigate the risk of groupthink that is inevitable in any tightly-knit community.
Frankly, this recent governance thread on the forum, has traits that, from the outside, seem to reflect local online trends instead of substance. This can produce “the wrong hill to climb”, wasting effort, disillusioning people, or be coopted.
To give a concrete sense of this issue, there is currently a post on the EA forum from an EA org looking for board members.
One of the commentators does object level work orthogonal to EA efforts, and seems to be one of the few people who understood to some degree the risks of FTX, and did not seek FTX funding or associations. Another commentor is a longtime EA, associated with the org, and like almost everyone else, did less to avoid FTX funding.
The person who avoided FTX gave a detailed comment that added in depth considerations to changing governance, and mentioned creating a novel new think tank.
On the other hand, the person more associated with the organization, gave a fairly generic positive comment. This is the response to the two comments.
In the past, I’m lucky to have had to chance to speak to Ozzie, who is one of the strongest and most principled people in EA, about his view of increasing board activity. If I understood and recall correctly, like him I imagined using boards as a device to seat and empower talent and provide institutional governance.
However, much of the response to these ideas about boards was negative from other people, including senior people. The general view is that boards can be negative and easy to poorly executed. I think I now agree with both views.
Thanks for the thoughts here. (And the kind words!)
There’s a lot going on here. I’m finding it a bit terse and subtle.
Maybe it would help to discuss some of this privately? (That might help with directness a bit). Feel free to send me a PM to chat there, or have a call, if that could be useful.
> It would be good to get a description with deep understanding or causal relationships for how a larger board, board quality, or governance in general would have prevented the FTX collapse, especially in a deceptive environment, like FTX, where low quality efforts can be coopted.
I think it would have been tough for a non-FTX board to have fixed the issue. However, if the boards of EA orgs that heavily interacted with FTX were really on their game, maybe they could have realized that EA should have been more cautious around FTX, and taken corresponding actions. I think FTX itself basically didn’t have a board, and if it did, it could have been much better too.
> Just as importantly, it would be good to have a detailed understanding of how boards would be involved in improving EA org operation.
I think of the board as the ED’s boss. If the org isn’t doing a great job, it’s kind of the ED’s responsibility. If the ED isn’t doing a good job, it’s sort of the board’s responsibility. Boards do have limited abilities in practice (it’s a huge pain to actually fire an ED), but I they definitely have some power. I think good boards help prevent corruption, align incentives from EDs, and help choose new EDs when needed.
> Frankly, this recent governance thread on the forum, has traits that, from the outside, seem to reflect local online trends instead of substance. This can produce “the wrong hill to climb”, wasting effort, disillusioning people, or be coopted.
I see it a bit more like a “window of opportunity/interest”. My hunch is that a lot of EA orgs have struggled a bit with middle/upper management (this is very common for orgs!), and the board seems like a good place to help improve things.
I just want to flag that I’m particularly excited about the paid board member positions. I think that having a designated board member or two be formally responsible to spend a solid chunk of time each month going through a list of check-ups, maintenance, and other sorts of duties, could be really promising. I look forward to working with whoever takes these roles to try to figure out how we think strong nonprofit boards should really work, when assisted with regular ongoing work.
There clearly is a lot to figure out in how to make charity boards go very well. If we can make this happen, I’d feel more confident in the future of RP. We could also take some of the lessons learned and recommend them to other EA organizations.
Strong upvote. I’d add that organizations should aim to have at least one—preferably two or even three—board members who are not “full-time” EAs. Diversity of perspectives is important—for instance, a tech company’s board should include people outside tech. It’s an important way to mitigate the risk of groupthink that is inevitable in any tightly-knit community.
I trust your intentions and your ideas seem extremely valuable
It would be good to get a description with deep understanding or causal relationships for how a larger board, board quality, or governance in general would have prevented the FTX collapse, especially in a deceptive environment, like FTX, where low quality efforts can be coopted. Famously, such cooption probably happened at Theranos.
Just as importantly, it would be good to have a detailed understanding of how boards would be involved in improving EA org operation.
Frankly, this recent governance thread on the forum, has traits that, from the outside, seem to reflect local online trends instead of substance. This can produce “the wrong hill to climb”, wasting effort, disillusioning people, or be coopted.
To give a concrete sense of this issue, there is currently a post on the EA forum from an EA org looking for board members.
One of the commentators does object level work orthogonal to EA efforts, and seems to be one of the few people who understood to some degree the risks of FTX, and did not seek FTX funding or associations. Another commentor is a longtime EA, associated with the org, and like almost everyone else, did less to avoid FTX funding.
The person who avoided FTX gave a detailed comment that added in depth considerations to changing governance, and mentioned creating a novel new think tank.
On the other hand, the person more associated with the organization, gave a fairly generic positive comment. This is the response to the two comments.
In the past, I’m lucky to have had to chance to speak to Ozzie, who is one of the strongest and most principled people in EA, about his view of increasing board activity. If I understood and recall correctly, like him I imagined using boards as a device to seat and empower talent and provide institutional governance.
However, much of the response to these ideas about boards was negative from other people, including senior people. The general view is that boards can be negative and easy to poorly executed. I think I now agree with both views.
Thanks for the thoughts here. (And the kind words!)
There’s a lot going on here. I’m finding it a bit terse and subtle.
Maybe it would help to discuss some of this privately? (That might help with directness a bit). Feel free to send me a PM to chat there, or have a call, if that could be useful.
Quick things:
> It would be good to get a description with deep understanding or causal relationships for how a larger board, board quality, or governance in general would have prevented the FTX collapse, especially in a deceptive environment, like FTX, where low quality efforts can be coopted.
I think it would have been tough for a non-FTX board to have fixed the issue. However, if the boards of EA orgs that heavily interacted with FTX were really on their game, maybe they could have realized that EA should have been more cautious around FTX, and taken corresponding actions. I think FTX itself basically didn’t have a board, and if it did, it could have been much better too.
> Just as importantly, it would be good to have a detailed understanding of how boards would be involved in improving EA org operation.
I think of the board as the ED’s boss. If the org isn’t doing a great job, it’s kind of the ED’s responsibility. If the ED isn’t doing a good job, it’s sort of the board’s responsibility. Boards do have limited abilities in practice (it’s a huge pain to actually fire an ED), but I they definitely have some power. I think good boards help prevent corruption, align incentives from EDs, and help choose new EDs when needed.
> Frankly, this recent governance thread on the forum, has traits that, from the outside, seem to reflect local online trends instead of substance. This can produce “the wrong hill to climb”, wasting effort, disillusioning people, or be coopted.
I see it a bit more like a “window of opportunity/interest”. My hunch is that a lot of EA orgs have struggled a bit with middle/upper management (this is very common for orgs!), and the board seems like a good place to help improve things.