Do you think that group bargaining/voting in EA would be a good thing for funding/prioritization?
I personally like the current approach that has individual EAs and orgs make their own decisions on what is the best thing to do in the world.
For example, I would be unlikely to fund an organization that the majority of EAs in a vote believed should be funded, but I personally believed to be net harmful. Although if this situation were to occur, I would try to have some conversations about where the wild disagreement was stemming from.
I think there’s probably a bunch of different ways to incorporate voting. Many would be bad, some good.
Some types of things I could see being interesting:
Many EAs vote on “Community delegates” that have certain privileges around EA community decisions.
There could be certain funding groups that incorporate voting, roughly in proportion to the amounts donated. This would probably need some inside group to clear funding targets (making sure they don’t have any confidential baggage/risks) before getting proposed.
EAs vote directly on new potential EA Forum features / changes.
We focus more on community polling, and EA leaders pay attention to these. This is very soft, but could still be useful.
EAs vote on questions for EA leaders to answer, in yearly/regular events.
I’d be interested to see some of those tried for sure!
I imagine you’d also likely agree that these proposals tradeoff against everything else that the EA orgs could be doing, and it’s not super clear any are the best option to pursue relative to other goals right now.
I imagine you’d also likely agree that these proposals tradeoff against everything else that the EA orgs could be doing, and it’s not super clear any are the best option to pursue relative to other goals right now.
Of course. Very few proposals I come up with are a good idea for myself, let alone others, to really pursue.
Do you think that group bargaining/voting in EA would be a good thing for funding/prioritization?
I personally like the current approach that has individual EAs and orgs make their own decisions on what is the best thing to do in the world.
For example, I would be unlikely to fund an organization that the majority of EAs in a vote believed should be funded, but I personally believed to be net harmful. Although if this situation were to occur, I would try to have some conversations about where the wild disagreement was stemming from.
I think there’s probably a bunch of different ways to incorporate voting. Many would be bad, some good.
Some types of things I could see being interesting:
Many EAs vote on “Community delegates” that have certain privileges around EA community decisions.
There could be certain funding groups that incorporate voting, roughly in proportion to the amounts donated. This would probably need some inside group to clear funding targets (making sure they don’t have any confidential baggage/risks) before getting proposed.
EAs vote directly on new potential EA Forum features / changes.
We focus more on community polling, and EA leaders pay attention to these. This is very soft, but could still be useful.
EAs vote on questions for EA leaders to answer, in yearly/regular events.
I’d be interested to see some of those tried for sure!
I imagine you’d also likely agree that these proposals tradeoff against everything else that the EA orgs could be doing, and it’s not super clear any are the best option to pursue relative to other goals right now.
Of course. Very few proposals I come up with are a good idea for myself, let alone others, to really pursue.