Thanks for sharing this relevant experience from another community! I think there’s probably something we can learn from this, though I’m less convinced about applying it directly.
In the AR community it seems to me like “facilitator” vs “attendee” is a good proxy for power differentials and the differential fades as time since the event passes. This seems much less applicable here: someone influential in a field (org leader, senior researcher, community builder, etc) in that people listen to their views on what work should be done, who is good, where funding should go, etc, has most of their influence/power independent of any specific event or interaction.
This seems most applicable to small intensive workshops: if A leads a weekend retreat for fifteen people then I think this rule is great. But if A speaks on a panel at a small session at a 1,000 person conference or is influential without any specific event, then I think we mostly need to handle this with different norms?
In EA, the roles of “facilitator” and “attendee” may not be as straightforward as they appear to be in AR. From personal experience, there are many influential people in the EA community who do not hold designated roles that overtly reveals their power. Their influence/soft power only becomes apparent once you get a deeper understanding of how community members interrelate and how information is exchanged. On the other hand, someone who is newly on a Community Building grant may have more power on paper than in reality.
I agree with the need for a policy. I just want it to reflect the nuances of power dynamics in EA. While no policy will be perfect, we should aim to create one that does not unnecessarily restrict people – which could lead to disillusionment with the policy. And more importantly, one that does stick in cases where it should stick – e.g. to people with a lot of soft power.
Thanks Jeff what makes you less convinced about applying it directly? Im not sure you laid out your issues with it? 100 percent agree it’s only one small rule which only applies in limited contexts and doesn’t solve what’s probably the biggest problem which you laid out (dangerous power differentials unrelated to events) but I think it could make a small positive difference at least.
Yes there would have to be nuance and I would suspect if you were a speaker on a panel this role wouldn’t apply. Or maybe just no romantic stuff during the conference itself for people with less of a power differential?
If someone hosts weekly EA meetups for their community, mostly because they happen to be a local EA whose apartment/house has a good common space and is centrally located, they can’t date anyone in their local EA community, since mostly someone will have attended one of their events within the last month.
If someone speaks at an EAGx they can’t date anyone who attended for 3m, even if the attendee is of equal or higher status/power within EA.
Again there needs to be nuance. Weekly events surely wouldn’t be included, and like I said below I think maybe a speaker could be off limits for the duration of EAGx but then no restrictions afterwards?
I don’t think those are concrete reasons not to apply it, just scenarios where it should be handled differently from the OP’s original scenario
I agree there are so many potential scenarios it would be hard to be fair and consistant.
I don’t think that’s obvious from the post? It describes the AR policy as including “for one month after an evening event” and then recommends community builders adopt this policy.
But I’m not really sure that we disagree on anything—I was trying to answer your “what makes you less convinced about applying it directly?”
Thanks for sharing this relevant experience from another community! I think there’s probably something we can learn from this, though I’m less convinced about applying it directly.
In the AR community it seems to me like “facilitator” vs “attendee” is a good proxy for power differentials and the differential fades as time since the event passes. This seems much less applicable here: someone influential in a field (org leader, senior researcher, community builder, etc) in that people listen to their views on what work should be done, who is good, where funding should go, etc, has most of their influence/power independent of any specific event or interaction.
This seems most applicable to small intensive workshops: if A leads a weekend retreat for fifteen people then I think this rule is great. But if A speaks on a panel at a small session at a 1,000 person conference or is influential without any specific event, then I think we mostly need to handle this with different norms?
In EA, the roles of “facilitator” and “attendee” may not be as straightforward as they appear to be in AR. From personal experience, there are many influential people in the EA community who do not hold designated roles that overtly reveals their power. Their influence/soft power only becomes apparent once you get a deeper understanding of how community members interrelate and how information is exchanged. On the other hand, someone who is newly on a Community Building grant may have more power on paper than in reality.
I agree with the need for a policy. I just want it to reflect the nuances of power dynamics in EA. While no policy will be perfect, we should aim to create one that does not unnecessarily restrict people – which could lead to disillusionment with the policy. And more importantly, one that does stick in cases where it should stick – e.g. to people with a lot of soft power.
Thanks Jeff what makes you less convinced about applying it directly? Im not sure you laid out your issues with it? 100 percent agree it’s only one small rule which only applies in limited contexts and doesn’t solve what’s probably the biggest problem which you laid out (dangerous power differentials unrelated to events) but I think it could make a small positive difference at least.
Yes there would have to be nuance and I would suspect if you were a speaker on a panel this role wouldn’t apply. Or maybe just no romantic stuff during the conference itself for people with less of a power differential?
Example issues with applying it directly:
If someone hosts weekly EA meetups for their community, mostly because they happen to be a local EA whose apartment/house has a good common space and is centrally located, they can’t date anyone in their local EA community, since mostly someone will have attended one of their events within the last month.
If someone speaks at an EAGx they can’t date anyone who attended for 3m, even if the attendee is of equal or higher status/power within EA.
Thanks Jeff
Again there needs to be nuance. Weekly events surely wouldn’t be included, and like I said below I think maybe a speaker could be off limits for the duration of EAGx but then no restrictions afterwards?
I don’t think those are concrete reasons not to apply it, just scenarios where it should be handled differently from the OP’s original scenario
I agree there are so many potential scenarios it would be hard to be fair and consistant.
> Weekly events surely wouldn’t be included
I don’t think that’s obvious from the post? It describes the AR policy as including “for one month after an evening event” and then recommends community builders adopt this policy.
But I’m not really sure that we disagree on anything—I was trying to answer your “what makes you less convinced about applying it directly?”