Thanks Jan, I appreciate this comment. I’m on the EAG team, but responding with my personal thoughts.
While it’s true that we weight 1:1s heavily in assessing EAG, I don’t think we’re doing ‘argmax prioritisation’—we still run talks, workshops, meetups, and ~1/​4 of our team time goes to this. My read of your argument is that we’re scoring things wrong and should give more consideration to the impact of group conversation. You’re right that we don’t currently explicitly track the impact of group conversations, which could mean we’re missing significant value.
I do plan to think more about how we can make these group conversations happen and measure their success. I haven’t yet heard a suggestion (in this thread or elsewhere) that I believe would sufficiently move the needle, but maybe this is because we’re over-optimising for better feedback survey scores in the short term (e.g., we’ll upset some attendees if we turn off specific 1:1 slots).
Thanks Jan, I appreciate this comment. I’m on the EAG team, but responding with my personal thoughts.
While it’s true that we weight 1:1s heavily in assessing EAG, I don’t think we’re doing ‘argmax prioritisation’—we still run talks, workshops, meetups, and ~1/​4 of our team time goes to this. My read of your argument is that we’re scoring things wrong and should give more consideration to the impact of group conversation. You’re right that we don’t currently explicitly track the impact of group conversations, which could mean we’re missing significant value.
I do plan to think more about how we can make these group conversations happen and measure their success. I haven’t yet heard a suggestion (in this thread or elsewhere) that I believe would sufficiently move the needle, but maybe this is because we’re over-optimising for better feedback survey scores in the short term (e.g., we’ll upset some attendees if we turn off specific 1:1 slots).