You point out EA Norway, which I was aware of, but I think itâs the only one and decided not to mention it (Iâve even been to the annual conference and apologise to the Norwegiansâcredit where creditâs due). But that seems to be the exception that proves the rule. Why are there no others? Iâve heard on the grapevine that CEA discourages it which seems, well, sinister.
I think Efektivni Altruismus is similar (e.g. their bylaws state that members vote in the general assembly), and it has similarly been supported by a grant from CEA.
Iâm glad someone mentioned national membership associations! I havenât done a formal tally but I think Germany and Switzerland are also membership associations. I quite like the idea for EA Netherlands (Iâm the co-director but here Iâm speaking in a personal capacity).
If we had more national membership associations we could together set up a supranational organisation to replace much of CEA. Like other membership associations, this would have a general assembly, a board, committees, and an executive office. Itâd be different from Michaelâs suggestion in that the fee-paying would be done by the national orgs. I.e., the members would be EA Switzerland, EA Netherlands, etc., and they would send delegates to the General Assembly.
This organisation could then provide relevant public goods, e.g., international networking via the EAG event series and the EA Forum, community-building training via the CBG programme, or anything else its members might consider valuable (e.g., advocacy work). Off the top of my head, an analogous organisation might be the Dutch Association of Municipalities (VNG). You can read about how the VNG is governed here and what they do here.
This could also help diversify funding in community building. Right now, most national EA organisations get nearly all of their money from CEA, and CEA gets nearly all of its money from OPâs Effective Altruism Community Growth (Longtermism) programme. Naturally, this means national organisations are incentivised to engage in more longtermist community building than they are in GHD or animal welfare community building, and we donât know if this is what the EA community wants.[1]
From what I understand, most national EA membership associations donât raise much from their membership fees, but perhaps this could change. For example, the other weekend I visited the Lit and Phil in Newcastle. Theyâve been going for over 200 years. Members pay GBP 150 per year and they have over 1000. That kind of setup would go a long way in funding an org such as EA Netherlands.
Of course, whether this should be a decision thatâs made by the EA community democratically, or by some other body such as the coordination forum, is something we havenât decided.
I think one large disadvantage of a membership association is that it will usually consist of the most interested people, or the people most interested in the social aspect of EA. This may not always correlate with the people who could have the most impact, and creates a definitive in and out.
Iâd be worried about members voting for activities that benefit them the most rather than the ultimate beneficiaries (global poor, animals, future beings).
First, about the risk of a membership association selecting for the people most interested in EA, the same holds for the current governance structure (but even more so). However, I donât think this is such a terrible thing. It can be an issue when youâre a political party and you have a membership that wildly diverges from the electorate, thus hampering their ability to select policies/âleaders that appeal to the electorate. But we arenât a political party.
Second, about the risk of a membership association selecting for those who are mostly interested in the social aspect of EA, I donât think this is necessarily the case. Do you think people join Greenpeace for the social side of things? Youâd have to pay to become a member, and it would come with duties that, for most people, arenât very exciting (voting, following the money, etc). Iâd be more worried about it selecting for people with political inclinations. But even then, it isnât a given that this would be a bad thing.
Lastly, your worry that members would vote for activities that benefit them the most, this is perhaps the main reason I think we ought to consider a more democratic movement. After all, the same risk holds for the current governance structure (to err is human). A big benefit of a membership association is that you have mechanisms to correct this; a core duty of membership would be holding the leaders to account.
In my opinion, the biggest issue with making the movement more democratic is that it could make things complicated and slow. This might make us less effective for a while. But, it might still be better in the long run.
EA isnât a political party but I still think itâs an issue if the aims of the keenest members diverges from the original aims of the movement, especially if the barrier to entry to be a member is quite low compared to being in an EA governance position. I would worry that the people who would bother to vote would have much less understanding of what the strategic situation is than the people who are working full time.
Maybe we have had different experiences, I would say that the people who turn up to more events are usually more interested in the social side of EA. Also there are lot of people in the UK who want to have impact and have a high interest in EA but donât come to events and wouldnât want to pay to be a member (or even sign up as a member if it was free).
I think people can still hold organisations to account and follow the money, even if they arenât members, and this already happens in EA, with lots of critiques of different organisations and individuals.
For better and/âor for worse, the membership organizationâs ability to get stuff done would be heavily constrained by donor receptivity. Taking EA Norway as an example, eirineâs comments tell us that (at least as of ~2018-2021), â[t]he total income from the membership fee covers roughly the costs of organising the general assembly,â that âboard made sure to fundraise enough from private donors forâ the EDâs salary, but that most âfunding came from a community building grant from the Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA)â (which, as I understand it, means Open Phil was the primary ultimate donor).
To me, that both constrains both how thoroughly democratic a membership association would be and how far afield from best practices a democratic membership association could go.
Re divergence, there will always be people who want to move the movement in a different direction. More democracy just means more transparency, more reasoning in a social context,[1] more people to persuade, and a more informed membership. Hopefully, this stops bad divergence but still allows good pivots.
The downside is that everything takes longer. Honestly, this is perhaps my biggest worry about making things more democratic: it slows everything down. So, for example, the pivot from GHD to longtermism in EAâs second wave would probably have taken much longer (or might not have occurred at all). If longtermism is true, and if it was right for EA to make that pivot, then slowing that pivot down would have been a disaster.
I donât think I understand why you think having a voting membership would mean more social events. Could you explain it to me? I think it would make the movement more responsive to what the community thinks is best for EA, and I think thereâs a case to be made that thousands of brains are better than dozens. This might mean more social events, but it might mean fewer. Letâs have the community figure it out through democracy.[2]
Yes, people can definitely hold people to account without being members, but they have far less âteethâ. They can say what they think on the forum, but thatâs very different from being able to elect the board members, or pass judgements as part of a general assembly.
I think Efektivni Altruismus is similar (e.g. their bylaws state that members vote in the general assembly), and it has similarly been supported by a grant from CEA.
Iâm glad someone mentioned national membership associations! I havenât done a formal tally but I think Germany and Switzerland are also membership associations. I quite like the idea for EA Netherlands (Iâm the co-director but here Iâm speaking in a personal capacity).
If we had more national membership associations we could together set up a supranational organisation to replace much of CEA. Like other membership associations, this would have a general assembly, a board, committees, and an executive office. Itâd be different from Michaelâs suggestion in that the fee-paying would be done by the national orgs. I.e., the members would be EA Switzerland, EA Netherlands, etc., and they would send delegates to the General Assembly.
This organisation could then provide relevant public goods, e.g., international networking via the EAG event series and the EA Forum, community-building training via the CBG programme, or anything else its members might consider valuable (e.g., advocacy work). Off the top of my head, an analogous organisation might be the Dutch Association of Municipalities (VNG). You can read about how the VNG is governed here and what they do here.
This could also help diversify funding in community building. Right now, most national EA organisations get nearly all of their money from CEA, and CEA gets nearly all of its money from OPâs Effective Altruism Community Growth (Longtermism) programme. Naturally, this means national organisations are incentivised to engage in more longtermist community building than they are in GHD or animal welfare community building, and we donât know if this is what the EA community wants.[1]
From what I understand, most national EA membership associations donât raise much from their membership fees, but perhaps this could change. For example, the other weekend I visited the Lit and Phil in Newcastle. Theyâve been going for over 200 years. Members pay GBP 150 per year and they have over 1000. That kind of setup would go a long way in funding an org such as EA Netherlands.
Of course, whether this should be a decision thatâs made by the EA community democratically, or by some other body such as the coordination forum, is something we havenât decided.
I think one large disadvantage of a membership association is that it will usually consist of the most interested people, or the people most interested in the social aspect of EA. This may not always correlate with the people who could have the most impact, and creates a definitive in and out.
Iâd be worried about members voting for activities that benefit them the most rather than the ultimate beneficiaries (global poor, animals, future beings).
Yes these are things I worry about too!
First, about the risk of a membership association selecting for the people most interested in EA, the same holds for the current governance structure (but even more so). However, I donât think this is such a terrible thing. It can be an issue when youâre a political party and you have a membership that wildly diverges from the electorate, thus hampering their ability to select policies/âleaders that appeal to the electorate. But we arenât a political party.
Second, about the risk of a membership association selecting for those who are mostly interested in the social aspect of EA, I donât think this is necessarily the case. Do you think people join Greenpeace for the social side of things? Youâd have to pay to become a member, and it would come with duties that, for most people, arenât very exciting (voting, following the money, etc). Iâd be more worried about it selecting for people with political inclinations. But even then, it isnât a given that this would be a bad thing.
Lastly, your worry that members would vote for activities that benefit them the most, this is perhaps the main reason I think we ought to consider a more democratic movement. After all, the same risk holds for the current governance structure (to err is human). A big benefit of a membership association is that you have mechanisms to correct this; a core duty of membership would be holding the leaders to account.
In my opinion, the biggest issue with making the movement more democratic is that it could make things complicated and slow. This might make us less effective for a while. But, it might still be better in the long run.
EA isnât a political party but I still think itâs an issue if the aims of the keenest members diverges from the original aims of the movement, especially if the barrier to entry to be a member is quite low compared to being in an EA governance position. I would worry that the people who would bother to vote would have much less understanding of what the strategic situation is than the people who are working full time.
Maybe we have had different experiences, I would say that the people who turn up to more events are usually more interested in the social side of EA. Also there are lot of people in the UK who want to have impact and have a high interest in EA but donât come to events and wouldnât want to pay to be a member (or even sign up as a member if it was free).
I think people can still hold organisations to account and follow the money, even if they arenât members, and this already happens in EA, with lots of critiques of different organisations and individuals.
For better and/âor for worse, the membership organizationâs ability to get stuff done would be heavily constrained by donor receptivity. Taking EA Norway as an example, eirineâs comments tell us that (at least as of ~2018-2021), â[t]he total income from the membership fee covers roughly the costs of organising the general assembly,â that âboard made sure to fundraise enough from private donors forâ the EDâs salary, but that most âfunding came from a community building grant from the Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA)â (which, as I understand it, means Open Phil was the primary ultimate donor).
To me, that both constrains both how thoroughly democratic a membership association would be and how far afield from best practices a democratic membership association could go.
Re divergence, there will always be people who want to move the movement in a different direction. More democracy just means more transparency, more reasoning in a social context,[1] more people to persuade, and a more informed membership. Hopefully, this stops bad divergence but still allows good pivots.
The downside is that everything takes longer. Honestly, this is perhaps my biggest worry about making things more democratic: it slows everything down. So, for example, the pivot from GHD to longtermism in EAâs second wave would probably have taken much longer (or might not have occurred at all). If longtermism is true, and if it was right for EA to make that pivot, then slowing that pivot down would have been a disaster.
I donât think I understand why you think having a voting membership would mean more social events. Could you explain it to me? I think it would make the movement more responsive to what the community thinks is best for EA, and I think thereâs a case to be made that thousands of brains are better than dozens. This might mean more social events, but it might mean fewer. Letâs have the community figure it out through democracy.[2]
Yes, people can definitely hold people to account without being members, but they have far less âteethâ. They can say what they think on the forum, but thatâs very different from being able to elect the board members, or pass judgements as part of a general assembly.
See Sperber and Mercierâs âThe Enigma of Reasonâ for why this might be a good thing
Personally, I think we should do fewer purely social events, but we should do more things that are both impactful and social.