I’d guess that a number of the people working at organizations take jobs there precisely because they believe they are the most effective organizations. In those cases there is no room for alleging bias.
I think I’m coming at this from a basically different perspective. I’m really not trying to make allegations of anyone being biased. I’m in favour of removing a conflict of interest, for basically the same reasons this comes up in other domains (e.g. recusing someone from a selection panel when they are related to a candidate): there might be bias, there might be pressure towards bias, and there might be the appearance of bias.
The particular point of expecting it to be somewhat frequent that people want to work for and donate to the same org for totally legitimate reasons I agree with and made in the post.
I think I’m coming at this from a basically different perspective. I’m really not trying to make allegations of anyone being biased. I’m in favour of removing a conflict of interest, for basically the same reasons this comes up in other domains (e.g. recusing someone from a selection panel when they are related to a candidate): there might be bias, there might be pressure towards bias, and there might be the appearance of bias.
Sure, there MIGHT be bias. So what? This type of ‘conflict of interest’ is totally speculative. It’s not existed for other nonprofit organizations where people have made donations to their employer. It’s not existed for employees working overtime. It doesn’t exist for the military (fairly commonplace for individuals to cover unit expenses there). I’ve never heard anything about this worry from inside or outside EA. You need to have a solid case before deciding that something is a problem. Right now you’re trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, and what’s worse is you think that it should determine the long run culture of the movement.
I think I’m coming at this from a basically different perspective. I’m really not trying to make allegations of anyone being biased. I’m in favour of removing a conflict of interest, for basically the same reasons this comes up in other domains (e.g. recusing someone from a selection panel when they are related to a candidate): there might be bias, there might be pressure towards bias, and there might be the appearance of bias.
The particular point of expecting it to be somewhat frequent that people want to work for and donate to the same org for totally legitimate reasons I agree with and made in the post.
Sure, there MIGHT be bias. So what? This type of ‘conflict of interest’ is totally speculative. It’s not existed for other nonprofit organizations where people have made donations to their employer. It’s not existed for employees working overtime. It doesn’t exist for the military (fairly commonplace for individuals to cover unit expenses there). I’ve never heard anything about this worry from inside or outside EA. You need to have a solid case before deciding that something is a problem. Right now you’re trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, and what’s worse is you think that it should determine the long run culture of the movement.