Upvoted this comment to make this message clear (though perhaps read sapphireās comment for an alternative take).
But I think the strongest point from Scottās Open EA Global remains a core problem:
Some people want to go to EA Global to network. Some people want to learn more about EA and see whether itās right for them. Some people want to update themselves on the state of the movement and learn about the latest ideas and causes. Some people want to throw themselves into the whirlwind and see if serendipity makes anything interesting happen. Some people want to see their friends and party.
All of these people are valid. Even the last group, the people who just want to see friends and party, are valid. EA spends I-donāt-even-know-how-many millions of dollars on community-building each year. And here are people who really want to participate in a great EA event, one that could change their lives and re-energize them, basically the community trying to build itself. And weāre telling them no?
The impression that getting EAG admission is a sign of your EA-worthiness is probably not going away soon. It almost feels like there should be 2 global conferencesāone for EA networking so that people who might be highly impactful can have productive conversations/āmeetings etc, and then another one for the community as a whole to come together, meet new people, discuss issues broadly and be part of a community. The latter sounds like āEA Globalā to me, the former sounds like it should be called āEA Co-ordination Conferenceā or something along those lines.[1]
This is just my impression of the situation, I know logistically it would be a lot more work for CEA to doāand I donāt even know if that ought to be CEAās job to set up that kind of event.
It almost feels like there should be 2 global conferences [...].
There are two EA global conferences.
EAG with high restriction and EAGx with a much lower bar for attendance and higher frequency.
EA Global is organized by the Centre for Effective Altruism, while EAGx is organized by members of the EA community, with support from the EA Global team [...].
The target audience for EAGx events is broader than EAG, but tends to have a more regional focus.
EA Global is mostly aimed at people who have a solid understanding of the core ideas of EA and who are taking significant actions based on those ideas. Many EA Global attendees are already professionally working on effective-altruism-inspired projects or working out how best to work on such projects.
EAGx conferences are primarily for people who are:
I think thereās definitely a clear two-level distinction going on here, where EAGx is for people early on in the EA-conveyor-belt, and once theyāve fully internalised and working on impact that they can move onto EAG. Furthermore, I donāt think this distinction is properly internalised by the community, partly because it doesnāt actually line up with all the facts. Many people rejected from EA Global āhave a solid understanding of the core ideas of EA and who are taking significant actions based on those ideasā, and are thus understandably upset when their application is rejected.
Making the distinction between the two much more clear in branding would make the distinction and the stakes more clear. I also think that having the big event for all EAs should be the biggest ones from a community building perspective! While the more regional, local ones might make more sense for network events for people working in the same field in similar geographical areas. But thatās currently the other way around.
Tl;dr: I still donāt think the EA Global/āEAGx distinction is getting at what Scottās pointing out in the quote
But the proposed access free EAG would result in something with the vibe of an EAGx.
EAG career conference for folks already working in high impact areas. EAGx community conference for everyone.
Is an EAG so different from an EAGx that we need a single huge EAG somewhere, where everyone can attend? And wouldnāt this undermine the distinction?
Upvoted this comment to make this message clear (though perhaps read sapphireās comment for an alternative take).
But I think the strongest point from Scottās Open EA Global remains a core problem:
The impression that getting EAG admission is a sign of your EA-worthiness is probably not going away soon. It almost feels like there should be 2 global conferencesāone for EA networking so that people who might be highly impactful can have productive conversations/āmeetings etc, and then another one for the community as a whole to come together, meet new people, discuss issues broadly and be part of a community. The latter sounds like āEA Globalā to me, the former sounds like it should be called āEA Co-ordination Conferenceā or something along those lines.[1]
This is just my impression of the situation, I know logistically it would be a lot more work for CEA to doāand I donāt even know if that ought to be CEAās job to set up that kind of event.
There are two EA global conferences.
EAG with high restriction and EAGx with a much lower bar for attendance and higher frequency.
https://āāwww.effectivealtruism.org/āāea-global/āāfaq
Well yes, but actually no...
I think thereās definitely a clear two-level distinction going on here, where EAGx is for people early on in the EA-conveyor-belt, and once theyāve fully internalised and working on impact that they can move onto EAG. Furthermore, I donāt think this distinction is properly internalised by the community, partly because it doesnāt actually line up with all the facts. Many people rejected from EA Global āhave a solid understanding of the core ideas of EA and who are taking significant actions based on those ideasā, and are thus understandably upset when their application is rejected.
Making the distinction between the two much more clear in branding would make the distinction and the stakes more clear. I also think that having the big event for all EAs should be the biggest ones from a community building perspective! While the more regional, local ones might make more sense for network events for people working in the same field in similar geographical areas. But thatās currently the other way around.
Tl;dr: I still donāt think the EA Global/āEAGx distinction is getting at what Scottās pointing out in the quote
But the proposed access free EAG would result in something with the vibe of an EAGx.
EAG career conference for folks already working in high impact areas.
EAGx community conference for everyone.
Is an EAG so different from an EAGx that we need a single huge EAG somewhere, where everyone can attend? And wouldnāt this undermine the distinction?
Which need is not addressed in an EAGx?