Thanks for writing this up! I think this is really important topic and I’m glad it’s being discussed. I’m hoping to discuss some of the possible solutions brought up:
Should we re-consider some decisions like de-emphasizing earning to give
I have only been involved in the EA community for a couple of years so I may not have the full picture about what de-emphasizing means. My impression of the current advice on earning to give is that it’s represented as one great option among many, and a sort of baseline impact you can have working even a fall-back job. In this way, I’ve thought the discussion is becoming increasingly more inclusive about what sort of role is an “EA” role. Are others perhaps not getting the same message I am? (e.g. I could see that if it felt like the advice went from “everyone should be earning to give” to “no one should be earning to give” that could alienate people.)
Should we re-consider… reducing the size of EA global?
At least for my experience as a grad student applying to conferences, I don’t think there’s a perception that the small conferences are exclusive, perhaps because it’s common knowledge (or maybe common lore?) that not everyone within one research group will be accepted. So, research groups self-select only one or two people to apply per year, with the understanding that if you aren’t going this year, it will be your turn in a future year. This ends up working out fine because there are lots of small conferences to choose from, and people within one group can just rotate through which one they go to any given year. Things probably can’t work exactly like this because EA is a lot less compartmentalized than, e.g., physics research, but perhaps there is some mechanism design like this that could be done to help people self-select out rather than being rejected?