Secondly, and much more importantly, I think most of the benefit comes from having the basic infrastructure in place (!!!). This is the place where I expect people to most disagree with me...
Could you expand on this more?
I donāt think you can have an infrastructure without the right people to set it up. Since this is a new model of support I think it would be important the founders would be strong and be able to experiment and set up a good system. But not sure if Iām misunderstanding your point here.
(Splitting my comments up since I have a few separate points)
Thereās a claim that EA is not talent-constrained nor vetting-constrained, but infrastructure constrained, which I think I agree with.
Thereās a difference between āpeople who set up the infrastructureā and āpeople who fill in the infrastructureā. I agree that itās extremely important the first group has the best people possible, I donāt think itās so important for the second group.
With this post, Iām trying to be the āright person to set it upā, by describing one possible infrastructure.
Thanks for the clarification. I think we have different defintions of āpeople who set up the infrastructureā and āpeople who fill in the infrastructureā.
For me:
āpeople who set up the infrastructureā are not just people who come up with the idea but also who are involved in on-the-grounds getting your hands dirty setting upāe.g. setting up the initial concept, but then experimenting and refining the set-up as time goes on. This seems like fairly difficult work. This on-the-ground iteration requires a much higher time commitment and therefore Iād expect it to be harder to recruit for.
Another distinction is the leader /ā core organiser of the infrastructure, who doesnāt need to have set it up and so in some way is āfilling the infrastructureā but probably needs to have certain skills. I think that this is also not going to be easy and requires people to pass some bar.
Could you expand on this more?
I donāt think you can have an infrastructure without the right people to set it up. Since this is a new model of support I think it would be important the founders would be strong and be able to experiment and set up a good system. But not sure if Iām misunderstanding your point here.
(Splitting my comments up since I have a few separate points)
Thereās a claim that EA is not talent-constrained nor vetting-constrained, but infrastructure constrained, which I think I agree with.
Thereās a difference between āpeople who set up the infrastructureā and āpeople who fill in the infrastructureā. I agree that itās extremely important the first group has the best people possible, I donāt think itās so important for the second group.
With this post, Iām trying to be the āright person to set it upā, by describing one possible infrastructure.
Thanks for the clarification. I think we have different defintions of āpeople who set up the infrastructureā and āpeople who fill in the infrastructureā.
For me:
āpeople who set up the infrastructureā are not just people who come up with the idea but also who are involved in on-the-grounds getting your hands dirty setting upāe.g. setting up the initial concept, but then experimenting and refining the set-up as time goes on. This seems like fairly difficult work. This on-the-ground iteration requires a much higher time commitment and therefore Iād expect it to be harder to recruit for.
Another distinction is the leader /ā core organiser of the infrastructure, who doesnāt need to have set it up and so in some way is āfilling the infrastructureā but probably needs to have certain skills. I think that this is also not going to be easy and requires people to pass some bar.