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 there’s definitely a clear two-level distinction going on here, where EAGx is for people early on in the EA-conveyor-belt, and once they’ve fully internalised and working on impact that they can move onto EAG. Furthermore, I don’t think this distinction is properly internalised by the community, partly because it doesn’t actually line up with all the facts. Many people rejected from EA Global “have a solid understanding of the core ideas of EA and who are taking significant actions based on those ideas”, 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 that’s currently the other way around.
Tl;dr: I still don’t think the EA Global/EAGx distinction is getting at what Scott’s pointing out in the quote
There are two EA global conferences.
EAG with high restriction and EAGx with a much lower bar for attendance and higher frequency.
https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ea-global/faq
Well yes, but actually no...
I think there’s definitely a clear two-level distinction going on here, where EAGx is for people early on in the EA-conveyor-belt, and once they’ve fully internalised and working on impact that they can move onto EAG. Furthermore, I don’t think this distinction is properly internalised by the community, partly because it doesn’t actually line up with all the facts. Many people rejected from EA Global “have a solid understanding of the core ideas of EA and who are taking significant actions based on those ideas”, 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 that’s currently the other way around.
Tl;dr: I still don’t think the EA Global/EAGx distinction is getting at what Scott’s 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 wouldn’t this undermine the distinction?
Which need is not addressed in an EAGx?