Why are people down-voting this as well as disagree-voting? It’s a controversial but non-crazy opinion honestly expressed without manipulative rhetoric. (I don’t have a strong opinion on it one way or the other myself.)
The post literally asks for ‘specific’ and ‘concrete’ suggestions. You can be succinct and concrete, like “annual vote by GWWC members to determine board” or “all grants >$100k decided by public vote on EA forum”.
Or a suggestion to open up discussion. There are many more structures that would be more democratic (regranting, assembly groups of EAs, large scale voting, hell even random allocation), but the principle here is essentially saying at the moment ea funds is far too centralised and thus we need a discussion as to how we should do things more democratically. I don’t profess to have all the answers!
Moreover, I think I am not sure the idea it is an Applause Light makes sense in the context of it being massively disagree voted. That is pretty much to opposite of what you would expect!
I think what we really need are more funding pillars in addition to EA Funds and Open Phil. And continue to let EA Funds deploy as they see fit, but have other streams that do the same and maybe take a different position on risk appetite, methodology, etc.
Variant: “EA funds should do small-scale experiments with mechanisms like quadratic voting and prediction markets, that have some story for capturing crowd wisdom while avoiding both low-info voting and single points of failure. Then do blinded evaluation of grants to see which procedure looks best after X years.”
EA funds funding should be allocated more democratically
Why are people down-voting this as well as disagree-voting? It’s a controversial but non-crazy opinion honestly expressed without manipulative rhetoric. (I don’t have a strong opinion on it one way or the other myself.)
I think calling for something to be ‘more democratic’, without further details, is a textbook example of an Applause Light.
This was a solicitation for items for a polis poll, so 140 characters max
The post literally asks for ‘specific’ and ‘concrete’ suggestions. You can be succinct and concrete, like “annual vote by GWWC members to determine board” or “all grants >$100k decided by public vote on EA forum”.
Or a suggestion to open up discussion. There are many more structures that would be more democratic (regranting, assembly groups of EAs, large scale voting, hell even random allocation), but the principle here is essentially saying at the moment ea funds is far too centralised and thus we need a discussion as to how we should do things more democratically. I don’t profess to have all the answers! Moreover, I think I am not sure the idea it is an Applause Light makes sense in the context of it being massively disagree voted. That is pretty much to opposite of what you would expect!
I downvoted because I think it’s less important than comparable ideas in this comment section
I think what we really need are more funding pillars in addition to EA Funds and Open Phil. And continue to let EA Funds deploy as they see fit, but have other streams that do the same and maybe take a different position on risk appetite, methodology, etc.
Variant: “EA funds should do small-scale experiments with mechanisms like quadratic voting and prediction markets, that have some story for capturing crowd wisdom while avoiding both low-info voting and single points of failure. Then do blinded evaluation of grants to see which procedure looks best after X years.”
I support experimenting with voting mechanisms, and strongly oppose putting prediction markets in there.