One option is to split the EA Community Fund into a Movement/Community Building Fund (which could fund organizations that engage in outreach, support local groups, build online platforms etc.) and a Cause/Means Prioritization Fund (which could fund organizations that engage in cause prioritization, explore new causes, research careers, study the policy process etc.).
This is an interesting idea. I have a few hesitations about it, however:
The number of organizations which are doing cause prioritization and not also doing EA Community Building is very small (I can’t think of any off the top of my head).
My sense is that Nick wants to fund both community building and cause prioritization, so splitting these might place artificial constraints on what he can fund.
EA Community building has the least donations so far ($83,000). Splitting might make the resulting funds too small to be able to do much.
RE #1, organizations doing cause prioritization and not EA community building: Copenhagen Consensus Center, Foundational Research Institute, Animal Charity Evaluators, arguably Global Priorities Project, Open Philanthropy Project (which would obviously not be a good place to donate, but still fits the criterion).
RE #2: if the point is to do what Nick wants, it should really be a “Nick Beckstead fund”, not an EA Community fund.
One option is to split the EA Community Fund into a Movement/Community Building Fund (which could fund organizations that engage in outreach, support local groups, build online platforms etc.) and a Cause/Means Prioritization Fund (which could fund organizations that engage in cause prioritization, explore new causes, research careers, study the policy process etc.).
This is an interesting idea. I have a few hesitations about it, however:
The number of organizations which are doing cause prioritization and not also doing EA Community Building is very small (I can’t think of any off the top of my head).
My sense is that Nick wants to fund both community building and cause prioritization, so splitting these might place artificial constraints on what he can fund.
EA Community building has the least donations so far ($83,000). Splitting might make the resulting funds too small to be able to do much.
RE #1, organizations doing cause prioritization and not EA community building: Copenhagen Consensus Center, Foundational Research Institute, Animal Charity Evaluators, arguably Global Priorities Project, Open Philanthropy Project (which would obviously not be a good place to donate, but still fits the criterion).
RE #2: if the point is to do what Nick wants, it should really be a “Nick Beckstead fund”, not an EA Community fund.
There are also independent EA researchers doing cause prioritization research without community building.
The fund is whatever he thinks is best in EA Community building. If he wanted to fund other things the EA Community fund would not be a good option.
But how is funding cause prioritization related to EA community building?