I directionally agree with this, but am generally averse to putting medium-risk-or-above projects inside a big organization without a sufficiently clear upside to the risk.
As relevant here, turning CBG grantees into CEA employees could potentially create a lot of exposure for CEA for various things that happen in the groups that these people lead. I’d be much more comfortable with spinning off community building into relatively asset-light, special-purpose organizations, e.g., “EA Community Builders of the Bay Area / UK / Etc.” I think you get many of the benefits of centralization that way without exposing the balance sheets of projects that need significant operating capital (and creating a potentially more attractive target for that reason).
I directionally agree with this, but am generally averse to putting medium-risk-or-above projects inside a big organization without a sufficiently clear upside to the risk.
As relevant here, turning CBG grantees into CEA employees could potentially create a lot of exposure for CEA for various things that happen in the groups that these people lead. I’d be much more comfortable with spinning off community building into relatively asset-light, special-purpose organizations, e.g., “EA Community Builders of the Bay Area / UK / Etc.” I think you get many of the benefits of centralization that way without exposing the balance sheets of projects that need significant operating capital (and creating a potentially more attractive target for that reason).
A separate organisation just for CBGs would have been useful too rather than a lot of one and two person teams with constant turnover.