If you are a community builder (especially one with a lot of social status), be loudly transparent with what you are building your corner of the movement into and what tradeoffs you are/aren’t willing to make.
I like this suggestion—what do you imagine this transparency looks like? Do you think, e.g., EA groups should have pages outlining their community-building philosophies on their websites? Should university groups should write public Forum posts about their plans and reasoning before every semester/quarter or academic year? Would you advocate for more community-building roundtables at EAGs? (These are just a few possible example modalities of transparency that just came to my head, very interested in hearing more.)
I would love to see more community builders share their theories of change, even if they are just 1⁄2 page google docs with a few bullets and links to other articles (and where their opinions differ), and periodically update this (say, every 6 months or so) with major changes, examples of where they were wrong (this is by far the most important to me)
I think GiveWell and OP’s early commitment to transparency were admirable, if unusual and time-consuming. Not all groups will go as in-depth, of course, but I think it’s usually good when EA leaders and emerging leaders are brave enough to practice their reasoning skills in the real world of their projects, and to show their thinking as it develops.
Thanks, great points (and counterpoints)!
I like this suggestion—what do you imagine this transparency looks like? Do you think, e.g., EA groups should have pages outlining their community-building philosophies on their websites? Should university groups should write public Forum posts about their plans and reasoning before every semester/quarter or academic year? Would you advocate for more community-building roundtables at EAGs? (These are just a few possible example modalities of transparency that just came to my head, very interested in hearing more.)
+1 to transparency!
I would love to see more community builders share their theories of change, even if they are just 1⁄2 page google docs with a few bullets and links to other articles (and where their opinions differ), and periodically update this (say, every 6 months or so) with major changes, examples of where they were wrong (this is by far the most important to me)
+1
I think GiveWell and OP’s early commitment to transparency were admirable, if unusual and time-consuming. Not all groups will go as in-depth, of course, but I think it’s usually good when EA leaders and emerging leaders are brave enough to practice their reasoning skills in the real world of their projects, and to show their thinking as it develops.