I agree with you that the orgs you mentioned (e.g. One for the World) are more focused on movement building than some of the other orgs that were invited.
I talked with Amy Labenz (who organized the event) in the course of writing my original reply. We want to clarify that when we said: āAt present, we see Leaders Forum as an event focused on movement building and coordination. We focus on inviting people who play a role in trying to shape the overall direction of the EA movement (whatever cause area they focus on)ā. We didnāt mean to over-emphasize āmovement buildingā (in the sense of ābringing more people to EAā) relative to āpeople shaping the overall direction of the EA movement (in the sense of āfiguring out what the movement should prioritize, growth or otherwiseā).
My use of the term āmovement buildingā was my slight misinterpretation of an internal document written by Amy. The eventās purpose was closer to discussing the goals, health, and trajectory of the movement (e.g. āhow should we prioritize growth vs. other things?ā) than discussing how to grow/ābuild the movement (e.g. āhow should we introduce EA to new people?ā)
Thanks Aaron, thatās a helpful clarification. Focusing on āpeople shaping the overall direction of the EA movementā rather than just movement building seems like a sensible decision. But one drawback is that coming up with a list of those people is a much more subjective (and network-reliant) exercise than, for example, making a list of movement building organizations and inviting representatives from each of them.
I agree with you that the orgs you mentioned (e.g. One for the World) are more focused on movement building than some of the other orgs that were invited.
I talked with Amy Labenz (who organized the event) in the course of writing my original reply. We want to clarify that when we said: āAt present, we see Leaders Forum as an event focused on movement building and coordination. We focus on inviting people who play a role in trying to shape the overall direction of the EA movement (whatever cause area they focus on)ā. We didnāt mean to over-emphasize āmovement buildingā (in the sense of ābringing more people to EAā) relative to āpeople shaping the overall direction of the EA movement (in the sense of āfiguring out what the movement should prioritize, growth or otherwiseā).
My use of the term āmovement buildingā was my slight misinterpretation of an internal document written by Amy. The eventās purpose was closer to discussing the goals, health, and trajectory of the movement (e.g. āhow should we prioritize growth vs. other things?ā) than discussing how to grow/ābuild the movement (e.g. āhow should we introduce EA to new people?ā)
Thanks Aaron, thatās a helpful clarification. Focusing on āpeople shaping the overall direction of the EA movementā rather than just movement building seems like a sensible decision. But one drawback is that coming up with a list of those people is a much more subjective (and network-reliant) exercise than, for example, making a list of movement building organizations and inviting representatives from each of them.