Re hiring: I think there’s a difference between hiring for “people to set up the infrastructure” and hiring for “people to fill out the infrastructure” (I wrote about this in another comment). I agree that the first one is very important to do well, I think that the second one can be done on a more natural selection basis.
I’m not sure I buy either of those claims.
I have a pretty strong intuition that someone trying to set up this infrastructure is doomed if they don’t try a bunch of things and closely engage with feedback loops (just because knowing what works is hard). If that’s the case—if doing regional coordinating is very important for setting up regional coordination infrastructure—then the two roles are not neatly separable (i.e. they need to be done by the same people, so we can’t have different hiring practices for the two roles).
I don’t have a good sense of what you mean by “natural selection basis.”
If you mean “hire people who are taking initiative and doing excellent work at smaller-scale / local organizing,” then I probably agree.
If you mean “hire people who aren’t excellent fits,” then I disagree for the reasons discussed in my original comment.
I wish we reverted back to the more volunteer basis of community building.
I’m pretty confused about how this fits with your interest in establishing infrastructure. Anecdotally, it seems that volunteer-based infrastructure often collapses because volunteers get busy with other stuff, while paying people creates financial incentives + financial capability for people to devote lots of time to a thing.
It makes me sad to see people in EA always cling to “throw a bunch of money at this” or “hire someone to do it for you”, instead of thinking of systematic ways to make the situation better
I also don’t get this—isn’t hiring people a systematic way to make a situation better?
There might as well be lots of people who “fit that bill”, but [...]
I think we can rule that out empirically—we can get a rough upper bound on the number of people who are prepared to do excellent regional coordination from the number of people on full-time CBGs. Unless I’m mistaken, in the US that’s just a few people.
I feel like you might be overestimating how excellent can community building work be (but I’m not sure!).
My estimate of (a lower bound of) how excellent community building work can be (relative to median community building work) comes largely from the evidence discussed in this post and this one. I think these posts provide strong support for the conclusion that some EA university groups are many times more impactful than others (even if we’re just comparing EA groups at similar universities). If you don’t think those posts strongly support that conclusion, I’d be really curious to hear why not. (Or maybe you see other strong evidence to the contrary?)
Hey, thanks for your thoughts!
I’m not sure I buy either of those claims.
I have a pretty strong intuition that someone trying to set up this infrastructure is doomed if they don’t try a bunch of things and closely engage with feedback loops (just because knowing what works is hard). If that’s the case—if doing regional coordinating is very important for setting up regional coordination infrastructure—then the two roles are not neatly separable (i.e. they need to be done by the same people, so we can’t have different hiring practices for the two roles).
I don’t have a good sense of what you mean by “natural selection basis.”
If you mean “hire people who are taking initiative and doing excellent work at smaller-scale / local organizing,” then I probably agree.
If you mean “hire people who aren’t excellent fits,” then I disagree for the reasons discussed in my original comment.
I’m pretty confused about how this fits with your interest in establishing infrastructure. Anecdotally, it seems that volunteer-based infrastructure often collapses because volunteers get busy with other stuff, while paying people creates financial incentives + financial capability for people to devote lots of time to a thing.
I also don’t get this—isn’t hiring people a systematic way to make a situation better?
I think we can rule that out empirically—we can get a rough upper bound on the number of people who are prepared to do excellent regional coordination from the number of people on full-time CBGs. Unless I’m mistaken, in the US that’s just a few people.
My estimate of (a lower bound of) how excellent community building work can be (relative to median community building work) comes largely from the evidence discussed in this post and this one. I think these posts provide strong support for the conclusion that some EA university groups are many times more impactful than others (even if we’re just comparing EA groups at similar universities). If you don’t think those posts strongly support that conclusion, I’d be really curious to hear why not. (Or maybe you see other strong evidence to the contrary?)