Many of those organizations share similar governance challenges. For instance, it is much more efficient to talk about conflict-of-interest issues at a somewhat general level, then tweak those to specific organizations than to take each organization individually.
Furthermore, some issues are likely to only be amenable to solutions that have buy-in from most organizations in the movement. For instance, if a whistleblower worked for Small Organization X, that organization having a good whistleblower policy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the whistleblower to feel safe making a disclosure. Small Organization X isn’t going to be in a position to provide much financial or legal support to the whistleblower should that be necessary, and doesn’t have any influence over whether the whistleblower is disadvantaged for future jobs or grants. So if you think a good bit needs to be done to protect would-be whistleblowers, you’re necessarily looking at movement-level solutions.
In general, your linked post is somewhat vague, but seems mostly focused on the idea of full democritization. In contrast, my post seeks to encourage proposals on a wide range of potential reforms (and in fact makes it clear that I only support moderate reforms at this time, although I encourage further development and specification of more extensive reforms as well).
Well, it is not exactly vague. It is quite precise in pointing out what I see as the problems in the “Doing EA better” post. I don’t make EA level governance proposals because I think at that level, there is not much to propose.
Near termist organizations look well focused, and for the “global agenda” “global risk”, the institutional problems look modest (while I think they are quite wrong in some critical material issues).
Many of those organizations share similar governance challenges. For instance, it is much more efficient to talk about conflict-of-interest issues at a somewhat general level, then tweak those to specific organizations than to take each organization individually.
Furthermore, some issues are likely to only be amenable to solutions that have buy-in from most organizations in the movement. For instance, if a whistleblower worked for Small Organization X, that organization having a good whistleblower policy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the whistleblower to feel safe making a disclosure. Small Organization X isn’t going to be in a position to provide much financial or legal support to the whistleblower should that be necessary, and doesn’t have any influence over whether the whistleblower is disadvantaged for future jobs or grants. So if you think a good bit needs to be done to protect would-be whistleblowers, you’re necessarily looking at movement-level solutions.
In general, your linked post is somewhat vague, but seems mostly focused on the idea of full democritization. In contrast, my post seeks to encourage proposals on a wide range of potential reforms (and in fact makes it clear that I only support moderate reforms at this time, although I encourage further development and specification of more extensive reforms as well).
Well, it is not exactly vague. It is quite precise in pointing out what I see as the problems in the “Doing EA better” post. I don’t make EA level governance proposals because I think at that level, there is not much to propose. Near termist organizations look well focused, and for the “global agenda” “global risk”, the institutional problems look modest (while I think they are quite wrong in some critical material issues).