I agree on all points (except the nit-pick in my other comment).
A couple things I’d add:
I think this thread could be misread as “Should RP grow a bunch but no similar orgs be set up, or should RP grow less but other similar orgs are set up?”
If that was the question, I wouldn’t actually be sure what the best answer would be—I think it’d be necessary to look at the specifics, e.g. what are the other org’s specific plans, who are their founders, etc.?
Another tricky question would be something like “Should [specific person] join RP with an eye to helping it scale further, join some org that’s not on as much of a growth trajectory and try to get it onto one, or start a new org aiming to be somewhat RP-like?”Any of those three options could be best depending on the person and on other specifics.
But what I’m more confident of is that, in addition to RP growing a bunch, there should also be various new things that are very/somewhat/mildly RP-like.
Somewhat relatedly, I’d guess that “reduced communication” and “PR” aren’t the main arguments in favour of prioritising growing existing good orgs over creating new ones or growing small potentially good ones. (I’m guessing you (Linch) would agree; I’m just aiming to counter a possible inference.)
Other stronger arguments (in my view) include that past performance is a pretty good indicator of future performance (despite the protestation of a legion of disclaimers) and that there’s substantial fixed costs to creating each new org.
I agree on all points (except the nit-pick in my other comment).
A couple things I’d add:
I think this thread could be misread as “Should RP grow a bunch but no similar orgs be set up, or should RP grow less but other similar orgs are set up?”
If that was the question, I wouldn’t actually be sure what the best answer would be—I think it’d be necessary to look at the specifics, e.g. what are the other org’s specific plans, who are their founders, etc.?
Another tricky question would be something like “Should [specific person] join RP with an eye to helping it scale further, join some org that’s not on as much of a growth trajectory and try to get it onto one, or start a new org aiming to be somewhat RP-like?”Any of those three options could be best depending on the person and on other specifics.
But what I’m more confident of is that, in addition to RP growing a bunch, there should also be various new things that are very/somewhat/mildly RP-like.
Somewhat relatedly, I’d guess that “reduced communication” and “PR” aren’t the main arguments in favour of prioritising growing existing good orgs over creating new ones or growing small potentially good ones. (I’m guessing you (Linch) would agree; I’m just aiming to counter a possible inference.)
Other stronger arguments (in my view) include that past performance is a pretty good indicator of future performance (despite the protestation of a legion of disclaimers) and that there’s substantial fixed costs to creating each new org.
See also this interesting comment thread.
But again, ultimately I do think there should be more new RP-like orgs being started (if started by fitting people with access to good advisors etc.)