Thank you so much for this post. It eloquently captures concerns that I’ve increasingly heard from group members (e.g., I know a fairly-aligned member who wondered whether a retreat we were running was a “waste of CEA’s money”). While I agree that the funding situation is a boon to the movement, I also agree that we should carefully consider its impact on optics/epistemics. I also think all your suggestions sound reasonable and I’d be really excited to see, for example,
a ‘go-to’ justification (ideally including a BOTEC) for spending money on events
more M&E for meta-EA funding, particularly spending from group organizers (and I say this despite it very much being against my self-interest, because I think this would substantially increase the effort of getting funding. So, I guess I’d really appreciate if an existing meta-EA funder looked into creating infrastructure for this)
Thank you so much for this post. It eloquently captures concerns that I’ve increasingly heard from group members (e.g., I know a fairly-aligned member who wondered whether a retreat we were running was a “waste of CEA’s money”). While I agree that the funding situation is a boon to the movement, I also agree that we should carefully consider its impact on optics/epistemics. I also think all your suggestions sound reasonable and I’d be really excited to see, for example,
a ‘go-to’ justification (ideally including a BOTEC) for spending money on events
more M&E for meta-EA funding, particularly spending from group organizers (and I say this despite it very much being against my self-interest, because I think this would substantially increase the effort of getting funding. So, I guess I’d really appreciate if an existing meta-EA funder looked into creating infrastructure for this)
a nuanced explanation of EA’s funding situation