I think it’s great that CEA increased the event size on short notice. It’s hard to anticipate everything in advance for complex projects like this one, and I think it’s very cool that when CEA realized the potential mistake, it fixed the issue and expanded capacity in time.
I’d much rather have a CEA that gets important things broadly right and acts swiftly to fix any issues in time, than a CEA that overall gets less done due to risk aversion resulting from pushback from posts like this one*, or one that stubbornly sticks to early commitments rather than flexibly adjusting its plans.
I also feel like the decision not to worry too much about Covid seems correct given the most up-to-date risk estimates, similar to how conference organizers usually don’t worry too much about the risk of flu/norovirus outbreaks.
(Edit—disclosure: From a legal perspective, I am employed by CEA, but my project (EA Funds) operates independently (meaning I don’t report to CEA staff), and I wasn’t involved in any decisions related to EA Global.)
* Edit: I don’t mean to discourage thoughtful critiques like this post. I just don’t want CEA to become more risk-averse because of them.
I’d much rather have a CEA that gets important things broadly right and acts swiftly to fix any issues in time, than a CEA that overall gets less done due to risk aversion resulting from pushback from posts like this one, or one that stubbornly sticks to early commitments rather than flexibly adjusting its plans.
Emphasis mine. This reads to me like “it’s bad to criticise organisations for mistakes you think they made, because that will make them more risk averse, and you’ll be to blame”. If that’s a correct interpretation, it seems really bad to me.
I do in fact believe that the claims I make above are mostly correct, and I think I made the claims in a careful and thoughtful way that was responsive to corrections from CEA. If my claims are correct, they should be discussed and corrected for in future events. If they aren’t correct, they should be refuted directly, not attacked on the meta level for letting the side down.
With that sentence, I only meant to suggest that I wouldn’t want CEA to become more risk-averse due to this post (or similar future posts). I didn’t mean to implicitly discourage thoughtful critiques like this one. Sorry if my comment read that way! I also agree with you that CEA should avoid repeating any mistakes that were made.
I also feel like the decision not to worry too much about Covid seems correct given the most up-to-date risk estimates, similar to how conference organizers usually don’t worry too much about the risk of flu/norovirus outbreaks.
Maybe – but if so that isn’t at all how the change was presented to attendees:
We hope that you’ll feel excited about this news, but we also understand that you might feel concerned about the increased level of risk. In order to mitigate this, we’ll have a heated marquee outside the front of the venue which can accommodate 40 one-on-one meetings at a time.
We realize that people have different circumstances and different comfort levels with COVID risk, and that a conference like this will involve a higher level of risk than some people are comfortable with. You can check out estimates on Microcovid as one decision-making aid.
Note the lack of any indication that CEA made this change because COVID was less bad than they previously thought. Seems like that would have been pretty useful info to share with attendees.
I think it’s great that CEA increased the event size on short notice. It’s hard to anticipate everything in advance for complex projects like this one, and I think it’s very cool that when CEA realized the potential mistake, it fixed the issue and expanded capacity in time.
I’d much rather have a CEA that gets important things broadly right and acts swiftly to fix any issues in time, than a CEA that overall gets less done due to risk aversion resulting from pushback from posts like this one*, or one that stubbornly sticks to early commitments rather than flexibly adjusting its plans.
I also feel like the decision not to worry too much about Covid seems correct given the most up-to-date risk estimates, similar to how conference organizers usually don’t worry too much about the risk of flu/norovirus outbreaks.
(Edit—disclosure: From a legal perspective, I am employed by CEA, but my project (EA Funds) operates independently (meaning I don’t report to CEA staff), and I wasn’t involved in any decisions related to EA Global.)
* Edit: I don’t mean to discourage thoughtful critiques like this post. I just don’t want CEA to become more risk-averse because of them.
Emphasis mine. This reads to me like “it’s bad to criticise organisations for mistakes you think they made, because that will make them more risk averse, and you’ll be to blame”. If that’s a correct interpretation, it seems really bad to me.
I do in fact believe that the claims I make above are mostly correct, and I think I made the claims in a careful and thoughtful way that was responsive to corrections from CEA. If my claims are correct, they should be discussed and corrected for in future events. If they aren’t correct, they should be refuted directly, not attacked on the meta level for letting the side down.
With that sentence, I only meant to suggest that I wouldn’t want CEA to become more risk-averse due to this post (or similar future posts). I didn’t mean to implicitly discourage thoughtful critiques like this one. Sorry if my comment read that way! I also agree with you that CEA should avoid repeating any mistakes that were made.
I’ve edited the previous comment to clarify.
Maybe – but if so that isn’t at all how the change was presented to attendees:
Note the lack of any indication that CEA made this change because COVID was less bad than they previously thought. Seems like that would have been pretty useful info to share with attendees.