I think that this question framed as an all-or-nothing is difficult to answerâwe donât know how to measure all the benefits as well as risks that the current community patterns afford us. Plus we canât exactly change âEAâ as a wholeâbut we could add subcomponents that have tighter centralisation, official membership etc.
This could be a great undertaking as a âspin-offâ brand that collaborates closely with existing EA community groups.
There are some follow-on questions that come to mind like:
would the target members be primarily working in high-impact roles or would they be in other professions and have an interest in EA? (Less educational perks can be offered if the member base is from different industries)
is there a segment of people who would join the professional association and be a part of that community that wouldnât be otherwise interested in EA? (Maybe other philanthropy-focused professionals)
(Cons of a spin-off approach come to mind, namely confusing org structures)
I think that this question framed as an all-or-nothing is difficult to answerâwe donât know how to measure all the benefits as well as risks that the current community patterns afford us. Plus we canât exactly change âEAâ as a wholeâbut we could add subcomponents that have tighter centralisation, official membership etc.
This could be a great undertaking as a âspin-offâ brand that collaborates closely with existing EA community groups. There are some follow-on questions that come to mind like:
would the target members be primarily working in high-impact roles or would they be in other professions and have an interest in EA? (Less educational perks can be offered if the member base is from different industries)
is there a segment of people who would join the professional association and be a part of that community that wouldnât be otherwise interested in EA? (Maybe other philanthropy-focused professionals)
(Cons of a spin-off approach come to mind, namely confusing org structures)