Yeah sorry I should have drawn a stronger link between the first and second half. As in, if Open Phil thinks it’s a good idea, they’ll let CEA do it or fund Michael to do it. If they don’t, CEA can’t do it and Michael can’t do it. That CEA currently has a lot more funding is not the issue.
But of course, Open Phil may well have greater trust in CEA’s general competence than Michael’s since they fund the former and not the latter, so maybe it wouldn’t be quite as easy as that (but maybe for good reason, hard to tell as an outsider). But the attitude of “This is so easy, why don’t you do it??” is so common on this forum and I think it’s holding EA back a lot, so I want to challenge it where I see it.
But the attitude of “This is so easy, why don’t you do it??” is so common on this forum and I think it’s holding EA back a lot, so I want to challenge it where I see it.
❤️
Also I wish people gave Giving What We Can more credit; it seems to me like they are basically doing this: membership org, relatively egalitarian donor base of 10k+ people, open access events, etc.
Same with EA Norway, Czech EA, and probably others.
As for the last sentence, I think it depends on the nature of the criticism/proposal. Here, I think it’s fair to critique Michael’s proposal on the grounds that it does not acknowledge that the plausible range of action for almost anyone but Open Phil is substantially constrained by Open Phil’s willingness to go along.
That being said, “this seems fairly easy, is there a reason you you don’t do it” can be a valid line of argument in appropriate circumstances.
I’d also like to call positive attention to Michael taking a concrete step that could involve a significant personal commitment of time (i.e., applying to be on the EVF board) in addition to writing on the Forum about the issue he sees.
Yeah sorry I should have drawn a stronger link between the first and second half. As in, if Open Phil thinks it’s a good idea, they’ll let CEA do it or fund Michael to do it. If they don’t, CEA can’t do it and Michael can’t do it. That CEA currently has a lot more funding is not the issue.
But of course, Open Phil may well have greater trust in CEA’s general competence than Michael’s since they fund the former and not the latter, so maybe it wouldn’t be quite as easy as that (but maybe for good reason, hard to tell as an outsider). But the attitude of “This is so easy, why don’t you do it??” is so common on this forum and I think it’s holding EA back a lot, so I want to challenge it where I see it.
❤️
Also I wish people gave Giving What We Can more credit; it seems to me like they are basically doing this: membership org, relatively egalitarian donor base of 10k+ people, open access events, etc.
Same with EA Norway, Czech EA, and probably others.
Upvoted; thanks.
As for the last sentence, I think it depends on the nature of the criticism/proposal. Here, I think it’s fair to critique Michael’s proposal on the grounds that it does not acknowledge that the plausible range of action for almost anyone but Open Phil is substantially constrained by Open Phil’s willingness to go along.
That being said, “this seems fairly easy, is there a reason you you don’t do it” can be a valid line of argument in appropriate circumstances.
I’d also like to call positive attention to Michael taking a concrete step that could involve a significant personal commitment of time (i.e., applying to be on the EVF board) in addition to writing on the Forum about the issue he sees.