Yeah I definitely have this in my head when thinking about how to run the EA Forum. But I havenāt made a commitment to personally run the site for five years (Iām not a commitment sort of person in general). Maybe that means Iām not a good fit for this role?
I also hear conflicting views on whether itās good or bad to āsignal that there is real investmentā. I think I intuitively agree with Habryka here, but then others tell me that it can look bad for us to talk about doing work that doesnāt tie directly to impact ā like maybe if we talk about improving the UX of the site, people will think that we are wasting charitable money, and that will decrease some peopleās trust in our team. So for some people, I think they would trust us more if we were doing less work on the site?
Yeah I definitely have this in my head when thinking about how to run the EA Forum. But I havenāt made a commitment to personally run the site for five years (Iām not a commitment sort of person in general). Maybe that means Iām not a good fit for this role?
I want to quickly flag that this sounds very wrong to me. In Oliverās case, he was the CEO of that org, and if he left then, I think itās very likely the organization would have died.
In comparison, I think CEA is in a much more robust place. Thereās a different CEO, and itās an important enough organization that Iād expect that if the CEO left, there would be sufficient motivation to replace that person with someone at least decent.
I think that it would be nice for CEA to make some commitments here. At very least, if it were the case that the forum was in great risk of closing in a few years, I assume many people here would want to know (and start migrating to other solutions). But I think CEA can make the commitments without you having to be personally committed.
Yeah I definitely have this in my head when thinking about how to run the EA Forum. But I havenāt made a commitment to personally run the site for five years (Iām not a commitment sort of person in general). Maybe that means Iām not a good fit for this role?
I also hear conflicting views on whether itās good or bad to āsignal that there is real investmentā. I think I intuitively agree with Habryka here, but then others tell me that it can look bad for us to talk about doing work that doesnāt tie directly to impact ā like maybe if we talk about improving the UX of the site, people will think that we are wasting charitable money, and that will decrease some peopleās trust in our team. So for some people, I think they would trust us more if we were doing less work on the site?
I want to quickly flag that this sounds very wrong to me. In Oliverās case, he was the CEO of that org, and if he left then, I think itās very likely the organization would have died.
In comparison, I think CEA is in a much more robust place. Thereās a different CEO, and itās an important enough organization that Iād expect that if the CEO left, there would be sufficient motivation to replace that person with someone at least decent.
I think that it would be nice for CEA to make some commitments here. At very least, if it were the case that the forum was in great risk of closing in a few years, I assume many people here would want to know (and start migrating to other solutions). But I think CEA can make the commitments without you having to be personally committed.